The Anaesthesia Case Report (ACRE) checklist: a tool to promote high-quality reporting of cases in peri-operative practice

Case reports have fulfilled an important role in the development of anaesthesia and continue to be highly relevant to modern practice. Despite this, they are sometimes criticised for being insufficiently rigorous to meaningfully inform clinical practice or research design. Reporting checklists are a useful tool to improve rigour in research and, although case report checklists have previously been developed, no existing checklist focuses on the peri-operative setting. In order to address the need for a case reports checklist that better accommodates peri-operative care, we used an established tool as the basis for developing the 12-item Anaesthesia Case Report checklist. This was refined using an iterative approach through feedback from journal editors with experience of handling case reports, patient and public involvement, and trialling its use on Anaesthesia Reports submissions. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist differs from existing checklists by aligning with peri-operative practice; it places less emphasis on making diagnoses and focuses on the way in which clinical challenges, for example, related to the patient’s comorbidities or operative interventions, are addressed. Adopting a standardised approach to the content of case reports presents clear benefits to authors, editors and peer reviewers through streamlining the processes involved in writing and publication. The Anaesthesia Case Report checklist provides a pragmatic framework for comprehensive and transparent reporting. We hope it will facilitate the authorship of high-quality case reports with the potential to further improve the quality and safety of peri-operative care.     

基于研究报告规范的批判性文献阅读对护士实施科研培训

目的 探讨基于研究报告规范的批判性文献阅读对临床护士科研能力培养的效果。方法 选取39名护理科研骨干,通过成立护理科研文献阅读小组,以研究报告规范为导向开展每月1次的批判性文献阅读活动,持续10个月。比较培训前后临床护士科研能力和职业认同感得分。结果 培训后临床护士科研能力得分、职业认同感得分显著高于培训前(均P<0.01)。结论 对临床护士开展基于研究报告规范的批判性文献阅读,可提高临床护士科研能力和职业认同感。     

The reporting quality of abstracts of randomised controlled trials submitted to the ICS meeting in Heidelberg

AIMS: The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with bias. Thus, reports of RCTs must have enough detail of key elements of quality to enable them to be interpreted properly. This study examines the quality of abstracts of RCTs reported at the ICS meeting in Heidelberg in 2002, using the CONSORT statement as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All of the abstracts accepted for the meeting at Heidelberg were read to identify reports of RCTs. Copies of these were printed and examined to see whether they complied with the 22 items in the CONSORT statement. As these were all abstracts the first CONSORT item was changed so that to comply the title had to say it was a randomised trial. Each item was scored as not met, partially met, met. RESULTS: Fifty-three reports of RCTs were found. Five of these were podium presentations, 14 discussion posters, and 34 non-discussion posters. Most reports did not comply with many of the items in the CONSORT statement, lacking particularly in technical details of the methods (only one study clearly reported hidden allocation to groups), and how the results were presented (only two studies fully reported results). Only 2/53 of the abstracts complied fully with more than 10 of the items, and 30/53 did not comply at all with 10 or more. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of studies at ICS is so poor that it is difficult to interpret the results. Reporting was particularly poor on the details of the randomisation and the numeric results.     

Addressing epistemic injustice in HIV research: a call for reporting guidelines on meaningful community engagement

IntroductionDespite the widely recognized ethical and practical benefits of community engagement in HIV research, epistemic injustice persists within the field. Namely, the knowledge held by communities disproportionately affected by HIV is systematically afforded less credibility than that of more privileged academic researchers. In order to illustrate what this looks like in practice, we synthesized the extent of reporting on community engagement within recent high‐impact HIV intervention research papers. However, we also posit that the HIV research sector has the potential to devise and showcase world‐leading examples of equitable research‐community partnerships and suggest actionable key steps to achieving this goal.DiscussionIn the absence of reporting requirements within the publishing process, it is difficult to infer whether and how the community have been consulted in the design, implementation, analysis and/or interpretation of findings. As an illustrative exercise, we offer a rapid synthesis of the extent of reporting on community engagement in HIV research from 2017 to 2019, which highlighted sporadic and very low rates of reporting of community engagement in recent high‐impact HIV intervention studies. Of note is that none of the included studies reported on community engagement through all stages of the research process. There were also discrepancies in how community involvement was reported. We provide three actionable recommendations to enhance reporting on community engagement in HIV research: (1) community‐led organizations, researchers and scientific journals should band together to develop, publish and require adherence to standardized guidelines for reporting on community involvement in HIV research; (2) research funders should (continue to) require details about how relevant communities have been engaged prior to the submission of funding requests; and (3) researchers should take proactive measures to describe their engagement with community organizations in a clear and transparent manner.ConclusionsThere is a clear and urgent need for guidelines that facilitate transparent and consistent reporting on community engagement in HIV intervention research. Without standardized reporting requirements and accountability mechanisms within the research sector, the extent of meaningful community engagement cannot be established and may remain a catchphrase rather than reality.     

A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials

Interventions from randomised controlled trials can only be replicated if they are reported in sufficient detail. The results of trials can only be confidently interpreted if the delivery of the intervention was systematic and the protocol adhered to. We systematically reviewed trials of anaesthetic interventions published in 12 journals from January 2016 to September 2019. We assessed the detail with which interventions were reported, using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological treatments. We analysed 162 interventions reported by 78 trials in 18,675 participants. Detail sufficiently precise to replicate the intervention was reported for 111 (69%) interventions. Intervention standardisation was reported for 135 (83%) out of the 162 interventions, and protocol adherence was reported for 20 (12%) interventions. Sixty (77%) out of the 78 trials reported the administrative context in which interventions were delivered and 36 (46%) trials detailed the expertise of the practitioners. We conclude that bespoke reporting tools should be developed for anaesthetic interventions and interventions in other areas such as critical care.     

A bibliometric analysis of the conversion and reporting of pilot studies published in six anaesthesia journals

Pilot and feasibility studies are preliminary investigations undertaken before a larger study. We hypothesised that only a small proportion of pilot or feasibility studies published in anaesthesia journals were correctly labelled as such. We searched for papers published between 2007 and 2017 in six anaesthesia journals using the text words ‘pilot’ OR ‘feasibility’ and included 266 original articles with 26,682 human participants. Only 34 (12.8%) were correctly labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. They were more likely to: have more median (IQR [range]) participants, 73 (40–130 [4–2716]) vs. 27 (15–60 [2–3305], p < 0.001; report feasibility outcomes, 82.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001; and report an intention to convert, 100% vs. 39.7%, p < 0.001. They were less likely to test the efficacy of the primary outcome, 50% vs. 72.8%, p = 0.009; and report firm clinical conclusions 41.2% vs. 67.7%, p = 0.004. Of the studies published more than 5 years ago, correctly labelled pilot or feasibility studies were more likely to precede a published conversion study, 53.8% vs. 16%, p = 0.004. There was no difference between the number of citations 18 (9–44 [2–216]) vs. 20 (7–47 [0–251]), p = 0.865. These results have important consequences for patients, trialists, researchers and funders. We argue that correctly labelled pilot studies enhance the quality of scientific research by encouraging methodological rigour, ensuring scientific validity and reducing research waste. Authors, reviewers, editors and publishers should ensure they adhere to the contents of the 2016 CONSORT extension for pilot and feasibility studies.     

Enrollment and reporting practices in pediatric general surgical randomized clinical trials: A systematic review and observational analysis

Background

Pediatric surgical randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are labor-intensive and costly. This systematic review investigated patient accrual and estimates of study duration in RCTs by interrogating enrollment and registration practices.

系统评价再评价摘要报告标准及在护理领域中的应用评价

对系统评价再评价摘要报告标准进行解读,详细介绍摘要报告条目、报告内容及局限性,针对当前摘要报告内容完整性欠缺,数据重复计算偏倚风险大等现存问题提供解决方案,为系统评价再评价文章摘要部分的报告规范及质量评价提供指导及参考。     

Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis

BackgroundThe dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals.MethodsAfter analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded.ResultsA total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35–182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5–5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78–165) days, 157 (IQR, 102–216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243–378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods.ConclusionThere was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.     

ABPI reporting and compression recommendations in global clinical practice guidelines on venous leg ulcer management: A scoping review

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for venous leg ulcer (VLU) management recommend below‐knee compression to improve healing outcomes after calculating the ankle‐brachial pressure index (ABPI) to rule out significant arterial disease. This systematic scoping review aimed to complete a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of international CPGs for VLU management to determine if consensus existed in relation to recommendations for compression application based on an ABPI reading and clinical assessment. Our review shows that there is a lack of consensus across 13 VLU CPGs and a lack of clear guidance in relation to the specific ABPI range of compression therapy that can be safely applied. An area of uncertainty and disagreement exists in relation to an ABPI between 0.6 and 0.8, with some guidelines advocating that compression is contraindicated and others that there should be reduced compression. This has implications in clinical practice, including when it is safe to apply compression. In addition, the inconsistency in the levels of evidence and the grades of recommendation makes it difficult to compare across various guidelines.     

2013—2017年中国骨质疏松研究的文献计量学分析

目的 分析中国骨质疏松研究领域的现状与趋势,为不断促进该领域科学研究的持续发展提供参考。方法 运用文献计量学的方法,对检索得到的文献进行分类研究。结果 共检索得到2013—2017年中国骨质疏松研究领域内文献23410篇,主要为期刊论文、硕士及博士学位论文、国内及国际会议论文以及报纸类型的文献,数量分别为18081篇、2750篇、2193篇以及311篇,构成比分别为77.24%、11.75%、9.37%以及1.33%。不同科技期刊、学位授予机构、学术团体、报纸等在骨质疏松研究领域内的规模和影响力存在明显差异。结论 在推动骨质疏松研究可持续发展的同时,中国研究者应更加注重高水平、高质量骨质疏松研究平台与科研载体培育和建设,通过开展高水平的科研活动,孕育高质量的科技产出,为实现中国骨质疏松相关研究的持续健康发展做出应有贡献。     

Results of a longitudinal study of rigorous manuscript submission guidelines designed to improve the quality of clinical research reporting in a peer-reviewed surgical journal

Background/Purpose

In an effort to improve the reporting quality of clinical research, the Journal of Pediatric Surgery instituted specific reporting guidelines for authors beginning June 2006. This study was conducted to evaluate whether these guidelines improved reporting of observational studies.

Methods

The Guidelines for the Reporting of Clinical Research Data (Guidelines) included 23 criteria in 3 subcategories: Methods, Results, and More than one treatment group. Reporting quality was evaluated by determining the percentage of criteria met. Seventy-three articles before implementation and 147 articles after implementation were independently assessed by 2 reviewers.

Results

Mean global composite scores increased from 72.2 pre-Guidelines to 80.1 post-Guidelines (P < .0001). Scores increased in each subcategory: Methods, 71.9 to 78.6 (P < .0001); Results, 77.2 to 83.0 (P = .002); and More than one treatment group, 40.0 to 70.6 (P = .0003). Post-Guidelines implementation scores have increased over time.

Conclusions

The introduction of the Guidelines resulted in significant improvement in the quality of reporting in the Journal. The low cost vs the benefit suggests that the Guidelines can be an effective way to improve reporting quality in nonrandomized studies. We encourage further efforts to increase inclusion of reporting criteria as well as evaluation and improvement of the Guidelines. We suggest that editors of other surgical publications consider implementing analogous guidelines.