Search

Background: To assess the quality of reporting of RCT protocols approved by UK research ethics committees before and after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline., Methods: We had access to RCT study protocols that received ethical approval in the UK in 2012 (n=103) and 2016 (n=108). From those, we assessed the adherence to the 33 SPIRIT items (i.e. a total of 64 components of the 33 SPIRIT items). We descriptively analysed the adherence to SPIRIT guidelines as proportion of adequately reported items (median and interquartile range [IQR]) and stratified the results by year of approval and sponsor., Results: The proportion of reported SPIRIT items increased from a median of 64.9% (IQR, 57.6-69.2%) in 2012 to a median of 72.5% (IQR, 65.3-78.3%) in 2016. Industry-sponsored RCTs reported more SPIRIT items in 2012 (median 67.4%; IQR, 64.1-69.4%) compared to non-industry-sponsored trials (median 59.8%; IQR, 46.5-67.7%). This gap between industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials increased in 2016 (industry-sponsored: median 75.6%; IQR, 71.2-79.0% vs non-industry-sponsored: median 65.3%; IQR, 51.6-76.3%)., Conclusions: The adherence to SPIRIT guidelines has improved in the UK from 2012 to 2016 but remains on a modest level, especially for non-industry-sponsored RCTs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aims: Using bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITAs) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been suggested to improve survival compared to CABG using single internal thoracic arteries (SITAs) for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. We used data from the Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART) to assess long-term cost-effectiveness of BITA grafting compared to SITA grafting from an English health system perspective., Methods and Results: Resource use, healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed across 10 years of follow-up from an intention-to-treat perspective. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with uncertainty characterized using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results were extrapolated beyond 10 years using Gompertz functions for survival and linear models for total cost and utility. Total mean costs at 10 years of follow-up were £17 594 in the BITA arm and £16 462 in the SITA arm [mean difference £1133 95% confidence interval (CI) £239 to £2026, P = 0.015]. Total mean QALYs at 10 years were 6.54 in the BITA arm and 6.57 in the SITA arm (adjusted mean difference -0.01 95% CI -0.2 to 0.1, P = 0.883). At 10 years, BITA grafting had a 33% probability of being cost-effective compared to SITA, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Lifetime extrapolation increased the probability of BITA being cost-effective to 51%., Conclusions: BITA grafting has significantly higher costs but similar quality-adjusted survival at 10 years compared to SITA grafting. Extrapolation suggests this could change over lifetime., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Misuse of statistics in medical and sports science research is common and may lead to detrimental consequences to healthcare. Many authors, editors and peer reviewers of medical papers will not have expert knowledge of statistics or may be unconvinced about the importance of applying correct statistics in medical research. Although there are guidelines on reporting statistics in medical papers, a checklist on the more general and commonly seen aspects of statistics to assess when peer-reviewing an article is needed. In this article, we propose a CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) comprising 30 items related to the design and conduct, data analysis, reporting and presentation, and interpretation of a research paper. While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research. We strongly encourage editors and peer reviewers to consult CHAMP when assessing manuscripts for potential publication. Authors also may apply CHAMP to ensure the validity of their statistical approach and reporting of medical research, and readers may consider using CHAMP to enhance their statistical assessment of a paper., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduced in 1983, Bland-Altman methods is now considered the standard approach for assessment of agreement between two methods of measurement. The method is widely used by researchers in various disciplines so that the Bland-Altman 1986 Lancet paper has been named as the 29th mostly highly cited paper ever, over all fields. However, two papers by Hopkins (2004) and Krouwer (2007) questioned the validity of the Bland-Altman analysis. We review the points of critical papers and provide responses to them. The discussions in the critical papers of the Bland-Altman method are scientifically delusive. Hopkins misused the Bland-Altman methodology for research question of model validation and also incorrectly used least-square regression when there is measurement error in the predictor. The problem with Krouwers' paper is making sweeping generalisation of a very narrow and somewhat unrealistic situation. The method proposed by Bland and Altman should be used when the research question is method comparison., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Over 400 reporting guidelines are currently published, but the frequency of their use by authors to accurately and transparently report research remains unclear. This study examined citation counts of reporting guidelines and characteristics contributing to their citation impact., Study Design and Setting: Web of Science database was searched for citation counts of all reporting guidelines with a minimum citation age of 5 years. The total citation impact, mean citation impact and the factors contributing to 2- and 5-year citation rate were established., Results: The search identified 296 articles of reporting guidelines from 1995 to 2013. The mean citations per year was 32.4 (95% confidence interval, 22.3-42.4 citations). The factors associated with 2- and 5-year citation performance of reporting guidelines included the following: open access to the reporting guideline, field of the publishing journal (general vs. specialized medical journal), impact factor of the publishing journal, simultaneous publication in multiple journals, and a male first author., Conclusion: The citation rate across reporting guidelines varied with journal impact factor, open access publication, field of the publishing journal, simultaneous publications, and a male first author. Gaps in citations highlight opportunities to increase visibility and encourage author use of reporting guidelines., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

Clear and informative reporting in titles and abstracts is essential to help readers and reviewers identify potentially relevant studies and decide whether to read the full text. Although the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement provides general recommendations for reporting titles and abstracts, more detailed guidance seems to be desirable. The authors present TRIPOD for Abstracts, a checklist and corresponding guidance for reporting prediction model studies in abstracts. A list of 32 potentially relevant items was the starting point for a modified Delphi procedure involving 110 experts, of whom 71 (65%) participated in the web-based survey. After 2 Delphi rounds, the experts agreed on 21 items as being essential to report in abstracts of prediction model studies. This number was reduced by merging some of the items. In a third round, participants provided feedback on a draft version of TRIPOD for Abstracts. The final checklist contains 12 items and applies to journal and conference abstracts that describe the development or external validation of a diagnostic or prognostic prediction model, or the added value of predictors to an existing model, regardless of the clinical domain or statistical approach used.

Background: It is unclear how multiple treatment comparisons are managed in the analysis of multi-arm trials, particularly related to reducing type I (false positive) and type II errors (false negative)., Methods: We conducted a cohort study of clinical-trial protocols that were approved by research ethics committees in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Canada in 2012. We examined the use of multiple-testing procedures to control the overall type I error rate. We created a decision tool to determine the need for multiple-testing procedures. We compared the result of the decision tool to the analysis plan in the protocol. We also compared the pre-specified analysis plans in trial protocols to their publications., Results: Sixty-four protocols for multi-arm trials were identified, of which 50 involved multiple testing. Nine of 50 trials (18%) used a single-step multiple-testing procedures such as a Bonferroni correction and 17 (38%) used an ordered sequence of primary comparisons to control the overall type I error. Based on our decision tool, 45 of 50 protocols (90%) required use of a multiple-testing procedure but only 28 of the 45 (62%) accounted for multiplicity in their analysis or provided a rationale if no multiple-testing procedure was used. We identified 32 protocol-publication pairs, of which 8 planned a global-comparison test and 20 planned a multiple-testing procedure in their trial protocol. However, four of these eight trials (50%) did not use the global-comparison test. Likewise, 3 of the 20 trials (15%) did not perform the multiple-testing procedure in the publication. The sample size of our study was small and we did not have access to statistical-analysis plans for the included trials in our study., Conclusions: Strategies to reduce type I and type II errors are inconsistently employed in multi-arm trials. Important analytical differences exist between planned analyses in clinical-trial protocols and subsequent publications, which may suggest selective reporting of analyses., (© The Author(s) 2020; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Objectives: Appropriate use of reporting guidelines of health research ensures that articles present readers with a consistent representation of study relevance, methodology, and results. This study evaluated the use of major reporting guidelines., Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional analysis of health research articles citing four major reporting guidelines indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (up to June 24, 2018). Two independent reviews were performed in a random sample of 200 articles, including clinical trials (N = 50), economic evaluations (N = 50), systematic reviews (N = 50), and animal research studies (N = 50). The use of reporting guidelines to guide the reporting of research studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of the reporting guidelines as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct the studies., Results: Across all selected reporting guidelines, appropriate use of reporting guidelines was observed in only 39% (95% CI: 32-46%; 78/200) of articles. By contrast, inappropriate use was observed in 41% (95% CI: 34-48%; 82/200), and unclear/other use was observed in 20% (95% CI: 15-26%; 40/200)., Conclusions: Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Authors may require further education around appropriate use of the reporting guidelines in research reporting., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials., Study Design and Setting: Review of 2 × 2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using Medline, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion., Results: Most trials (78%) did not provide a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n = 10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model., Conclusion: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this paper is to help readers choose an appropriate observational study design for measuring an association between an exposure and disease incidence. We discuss cohort studies, sub-samples from cohorts (case-cohort and nested case-control designs), and population-based or hospital-based case-control studies. Appropriate study design is the foundation of a scientifically valid observational study. Mistakes in design are often irremediable. Key steps are understanding the scientific aims of the study and what is required to achieve them. Some designs will not yield the information required to realise the aims. The choice of design also depends on the availability of source populations and resources. Choosing an appropriate design requires balancing the pros and cons of various designs in view of study aims and practical constraints. We compare various cohort and case-control designs to estimate the effect of an exposure on disease incidence and mention how certain design features can reduce threats to study validity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9)., Results: The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100]., Conclusions: Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting., Trial Registration: Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Being able to draw accurate conclusions from childhood obesity trials is important to make advances in reversing the obesity epidemic. However, obesity research sometimes is not conducted or reported to appropriate scientific standards. To constructively draw attention to this issue, we present 10 errors that are commonly committed, illustrate each error with examples from the childhood obesity literature, and follow with suggestions on how to avoid these errors. These errors are as follows: using self-reported outcomes and teaching to the test; foregoing control groups and risking regression to the mean creating differences over time; changing the goal posts; ignoring clustering in studies that randomize groups of children; following the forking paths, subsetting, p-hacking, and data dredging; basing conclusions on tests for significant differences from baseline; equating "no statistically significant difference" with "equally effective"; ignoring intervention study results in favor of observational analyses; using one-sided testing for statistical significance; and stating that effects are clinically significant even though they are not statistically significant. We hope that compiling these errors in one article will serve as the beginning of a checklist to support fidelity in conducting, analyzing, and reporting childhood obesity research., (© 2019 World Obesity Federation.)

Most studies aiming to construct reference or standard charts use a cross-sectional design, collecting one measurement per participant. Reference or standard charts can also be constructed using a longitudinal design, collecting multiple measurements per participant. The choice of appropriate statistical methodology is important as inaccurate centiles resulting from inferior methods can lead to incorrect judgements about fetal or newborn size, resulting in suboptimal clinical care. Reference or standard centiles should ideally provide the best fit to the data, change smoothly with age (eg, gestational age), use as simple a statistical model as possible without compromising model fit, and allow the computation of Z-scores from centiles to simplify assessment of individuals and enable comparison with different populations. Significance testing and goodness-of-fit statistics are usually used to discriminate between models. However, these methods tend not to be useful when examining large data sets as very small differences are statistically significant even if the models are indistinguishable on actual centile plots. Choosing the best model from amongst many is therefore not trivial. Model choice should not be based on statistical considerations (or tests) alone as sometimes the best model may not necessarily offer the best fit to the raw data across gestational age. In this paper, we describe the most commonly applied methodologies available for the construction of age-specific reference or standard centiles for cross-sectional and longitudinal data: Fractional polynomial regression, LMS, LMST, LMSP, and multilevel regression methods. For illustration, we used data from the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project, ie, newborn weight (cross-sectional) and fetal head circumference (longitudinal) data as examples., (© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This paper discusses the features of study design and methodological considerations for constructing reference centile charts for attained size, growth, and velocity charts with a focus on human growth charts used during pregnancy. Recent systematic reviews of pregnancy dating, fetal size, and newborn size charts showed that many studies aimed at constructing charts are still conducted poorly. Important design features such as inclusion and exclusion criteria, ultrasound quality control measures, sample size determination, anthropometric evaluation, gestational age estimation, assessment of outliers, and chart presentation are seldom well addressed, considered, or reported. Many of these charts are in clinical use today and directly affect the identification of at-risk newborns that require treatment and nutritional strategies. This paper therefore reiterates some of the concepts previously identified as important for growth studies, focusing on considerations and concepts related to study design, sample size, and methodological considerations with an aim of obtaining valid reference or standard centile charts. We discuss some of the key issues and provide more details and practical examples based on our experiences from the INTERGROWTH-21 st Project. We discuss the statistical methodology and analyses for cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies in a separate article in this issue., (© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Binary logistic regression is one of the most frequently applied statistical approaches for developing clinical prediction models. Developers of such models often rely on an Events Per Variable criterion (EPV), notably EPV ≥10, to determine the minimal sample size required and the maximum number of candidate predictors that can be examined. We present an extensive simulation study in which we studied the influence of EPV, events fraction, number of candidate predictors, the correlations and distributions of candidate predictor variables, area under the ROC curve, and predictor effects on out-of-sample predictive performance of prediction models. The out-of-sample performance (calibration, discrimination and probability prediction error) of developed prediction models was studied before and after regression shrinkage and variable selection. The results indicate that EPV does not have a strong relation with metrics of predictive performance, and is not an appropriate criterion for (binary) prediction model development studies. We show that out-of-sample predictive performance can better be approximated by considering the number of predictors, the total sample size and the events fraction. We propose that the development of new sample size criteria for prediction models should be based on these three parameters, and provide suggestions for improving sample size determination.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

To promote uniformity in measuring adherence to the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, a reporting guideline for diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, and thereby facilitate comparability of future studies assessing its impact, we transformed the original 22 TRIPOD items into an adherence assessment form and defined adherence scoring rules. TRIPOD specific challenges encountered were the existence of different types of prediction model studies and possible combinations of these within publications. More general issues included dealing with multiple reporting elements, reference to information in another publication, and non-applicability of items. We recommend our adherence assessment form to be used by anyone (eg, researchers, reviewers, editors) evaluating adherence to TRIPOD, to make these assessments comparable. In general, when developing a form to assess adherence to a reporting guideline, we recommend formulating specific adherence elements (if needed multiple per reporting guideline item) using unambiguous wording and the consideration of issues of applicability in advance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DGA, JBR, GSC, and KGMM are members of the TRIPOD Group., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials is suboptimal. In an era in which the need for greater research transparency is paramount, inadequate reporting hinders assessment of the reliability and validity of trial findings. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials, but the primary focus was on parallel-group trials with 2 groups. Multi-arm trials that use a parallel-group design (comparing treatments by concurrently randomizing participants to one of the treatment groups, usually with equal probability) but have 3 or more groups are relatively common. The quality of reporting of multi-arm trials varies substantially, making judgments and interpretation difficult. While the majority of the elements of the CONSORT 2010 Statement apply equally to multi-arm trials, some elements need adaptation, and, in some cases, additional issues need to be clarified., Objective: To present an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for reporting multi-arm trials to facilitate the reporting of such trials., Design: A guideline writing group, which included all authors, formed following the CONSORT group meeting in 2014. The authors met in person and by teleconference bimonthly between 2014 and 2018 to develop and revise the checklist and the accompanying text, with additional discussions by email. A draft manuscript was circulated to the wider CONSORT group of 36 individuals, plus 5 other selected individuals known for their specialist knowledge in clinical trials, for review. Extensive feedback was received from 14 individuals and, after detailed consideration of their comments, a final revised version of the extension was prepared., Findings: This CONSORT extension for multi-arm trials expands on 10 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and provides examples of good reporting and a rationale for the importance of each extension item. Key recommendations are that multi-arm trials should be identified as such and require clear objectives and hypotheses referring to all of the treatment groups. Primary treatment comparisons should be identified and authors should report the planned and unplanned comparisons resulting from multiple groups completely and transparently. If statistical adjustments for multiplicity are applied, the rationale and method used should be described., Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides specific guidance for the reporting of multi-arm parallel-group randomized clinical trials and should help provide greater transparency and accuracy in the reporting of such trials.

Objectives: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields., Study Design and Setting: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests., Results: Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements., Conclusion: Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists., Methods and Findings: Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality., Conclusion: As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AGR has received lecture honoraria from Merck Serona and Janssen-Cilag, and independent research funding and lecture honoraria from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi Pasteur MSD. ME receives a stipend as a Specialty Consulting Editor for PLOS Medicine and serves on the journal's Editorial Board.

Background: Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol., Methods: The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants., Results: The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes., Conclusions: Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

Background: Multiple arterial grafts may result in longer survival than single arterial grafts after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. We evaluated the use of bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts for CABG., Methods: We randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting. Additional arterial or vein grafts were used as indicated. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome., Results: A total of 1548 patients were randomly assigned to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group) and 1554 to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group). In the bilateral-graft group, 13.9% of the patients received only a single internal-thoracic-artery graft, and in the single-graft group, 21.8% of the patients also received a radial-artery graft. Vital status was not known for 2.3% of the patients at 10 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 10 years, there were 315 deaths (20.3% of the patients) in the bilateral-graft group and 329 deaths (21.2%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.62). Regarding the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, there were 385 patients (24.9%) with an event in the bilateral-graft group and 425 patients (27.3%) with an event in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.03)., Conclusions: Among patients who were scheduled for CABG and had been randomly assigned to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death from any cause at 10 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. Further studies are needed to determine whether multiple arterial grafts provide better outcomes than a single internal-thoracic-artery graft. (Funded by the British Heath Foundation and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN46552265 .).

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None.

Purpose: To assess the adherence of stroke randomised controlled trials to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines and investigate the factors that are associated with completeness of reporting., Method: We took a random sample from the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trial Register of transient ischaemic attack or stroke randomised controlled trials, published in English in 1997-2016 inclusive. Two reviewers assessed the published report of the final primary results of stroke randomised controlled trials with a 10-point truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting checklist to investigate adherence over time, univariable associations and independent associations with total Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting score in a multiple linear regression model., Findings: In this random sample of 177 stroke randomised controlled trials, the mean score on the truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials checklist was 5.8 (SD 2.2); reporting improved from 1997-2000 (4.9 SD 2.0) to 2001-2009 (5.8 SD 2.1) and to 2010-2016 (6.8 SD 2.1). A higher Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials score was independently associated with publication during epochs following a revision of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines (p < 0.001), journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guideline at the time of randomised controlled trial publication (p < 0.001) and modified journal impact factor using median citation distribution (p = 0.012)., Discussion: Stroke randomised controlled trial reporting to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials standards has improved over time, but could be better., Conclusion: Journal endorsement and enforcement of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines could further improve the reporting of stroke randomised controlled trials. Systematic review registration: Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017072193).

Background: Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline., Methods: We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages: 1) Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline; 2) A scoping literature review to inform future stages; 3) Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel; 4) A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders; 5) A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document; 6) Refining and finalising the checklist; and 7) Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process., Results: Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies., Conclusions: We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

Background: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology., Methods: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty)., Results: Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1-Q3, 1-7). The prognostic factors' effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions., Conclusions: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper.

Background: As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD statement, to refine and tailor its implementation strategy., Methods: Within each of 37 clinical domains, 10 journals with the highest journal impact factor were selected. A PubMed search was performed to identify prediction model studies published before the launch of TRIPOD in these journals (May 2014). Eligible publications reported on the development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) or on the incremental value of adding a predictor to an existing model., Results: We included 146 publications (84% prognostic), from which we assessed 170 models: 73 (43%) on model development, 43 (25%) on external validation, 33 (19%) on incremental value, and 21 (12%) on combined development and external validation of the same model. Overall, publications adhered to a median of 44% (25th-75th percentile 35-52%) of TRIPOD items, with 44% (35-53%) for prognostic and 41% (34-48%) for diagnostic models. TRIPOD items that were completely reported for less than 25% of the models concerned abstract (2%), title (5%), blinding of predictor assessment (6%), comparison of development and validation data (11%), model updating (14%), model performance (14%), model specification (17%), characteristics of participants (21%), model performance measures (methods) (21%), and model-building procedures (24%). Most often reported were TRIPOD items regarding overall interpretation (96%), source of data (95%), and risk groups (90%)., Conclusions: More than half of the items considered essential for transparent reporting were not fully addressed in publications of multivariable prediction model studies. Essential information for using a model in individual risk prediction, i.e. model specifications and model performance, was incomplete for more than 80% of the models. Items that require improved reporting are title, abstract, and model-building procedures, as they are crucial for identification and external validation of prediction models.

In 2010, the NC3Rs published the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to improve the reporting of animal research. Despite considerable levels of support from the scientific community, the impact on the quality of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. This position paper highlights the strategy of an expert working group established to revise the guidelines and facilitate their uptake. The group's initial work will focus on three main areas: prioritisation of the ARRIVE items into a tiered system, development of an explanation and elaboration document, and revision of specific items., Competing Interests: Competing interests AA: editor in chief of the British Journal of Pharmacology. DGA, WB, ICC and ME: authors of the original ARRIVE guidelines. WB: professor of Statistics at the University of Bristol, consults for HEFCE and the UK Home Office, work funded by many of the UK research councils, Defra, the British Academy and the RSPCA, serves on the Independent Statistical Standing Committee of the funder CHDI foundation, chair of the members committee of the Cathedral Schools Trust, a multiple academy trust and a governor of Wrington Church of England primary school. AC, CJM, MMcL and ESS: involved in the IICARus trial. ME, MMcL and ESS: have received funding from NC3Rs. ME: sits on the MRC ERPIC panel. STH: chair of the NC3Rs board, trusteeship of the BLF, Kennedy Trust, DSRU and CRUK, member of Governing Board, Nuffield Council of Bioethics, member Science Panel for Health (EU H2020), founder and NEB Director Synairgen, consultant Novartis, Teva and AZ, chair MRC/GSK EMINENT Collaboration. VH and NPdS: NC3Rs staff, role includes promoting the ARRIVE guidelines. CJMcC: shareholdings in Hindawi, on the publishing board of the Royal Society, on the EU Open Science policy platform. MMcL, NPdS, CJMcC, ESS, TS and HW: members of EQIPD. MMcL: member of the Animals in Science Committee. NPdS and TS: associate editors of BMJ Open Science. OP: vice president of Academia Europaea, senior executive editor of the Journal of Physiology, member of the Board of the European Commission’s SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies). FR: NC3Rs board member, shareholdings in AstraZeneca and GSK. ESS: editor in chief of BMJ Open Science. SDS: role is to provide expertise and does not represent the opinion of the NIH. TS: shareholdings in Johnson & Johnson. SA, MTA, MB, UD, PG, DWH, NAK, PR and KR declared no conflict of interest. ESS is editor in chief of this journal and was not part of the decision-making process for this manuscript.

Background: The Arterial Revascularization Trial has been designed to answer the question whether the use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries can improve 10-year outcomes when compared with single internal thoracic arteries. In the Arterial Revascularization Trial, a significant proportion of patients initially allocated to bilateral internal thoracic arteries received other conduit strategies. We sought to investigate the incidence and clinical implication of bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion in the Arterial Revascularization Trial., Methods: Among patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularization Trial (n = 3102), we excluded those allocated to single internal thoracic arteries (n = 1554), those who did not undergo surgery (n = 16), and those who underwent operation but withdrew after randomization (n = 7). Propensity score matching was used to compare converted versus nonconverted bilateral internal thoracic artery groups., Results: A total of 1525 patients were operated with the intention to receive bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting. Of those, 233 (15.3%) were converted to other conduit selection strategies. Incidence of conversion largely varied across 131 participating surgeons (from 0% to 100%). The most common reason for bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion was the evidence of at least 1 internal thoracic artery that was not suitable, which was reported in 77 cases. Patients with intraoperative bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion received a lower number of grafts (2.95 ± 0.84 vs 3.21 ± 0.74; P < .001). However, the hospital mortality rate was comparable to that of those who did not require bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion (0% vs 1.6%; P = .1), as well as the incidence of major complications. At 5 years, we found a nonsignificant excess of deaths (11.9% vs 8.4%; P = .1) and major adverse events (17.1% 13.2%; P = .1) mainly driven by an excess of revascularization in patients requiring conversion., Conclusions: The incidence of intraoperative bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion is not infrequent. Bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion is not associated with increased operative morbidity, but its effect on late outcomes remains uncertain., (Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Methods to assess the risk of bias in a way that is reliable, reproducible. and transparent to readers, have evolved over time. Viswanathan et al. recently provided updated recommendations for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews of health care interventions. We comment on their recommendations and discuss new tools in development that we, as co-convenors and coordinators of the Cochrane Bias Methods Group, are leading, which complement the methods recommended., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The long-term effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass continue to be controversial because some studies have reported increased adverse event rates with off-pump coronary artery bypass when compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass. The Arterial Revascularization Trial compared survival after bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting. The choice of off-pump coronary artery bypass versus on-pump coronary artery bypass was based on the surgeon's discretion. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Trial to compare 5-year outcomes with 2 strategies., Methods: Among 3102 patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularization Trial, we selected 1260 patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass versus 1700 patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass with cardioplegic arrest for the present comparison. Primary outcomes were 5-year mortality and incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and revascularization after index procedure. Propensity score matching selected 1260 pairs for final comparison. Stratified Cox models were used for treatment effect estimate., Results: Hospital mortality was comparable between off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups (12 [1.0%] vs 15 [1.2%]; P = .7). Conversion rate to on-pump during off-pump coronary artery bypass was 29 of 1260 (2.3%). When compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass not converted, off-pump coronary artery bypass converted to on-pump presented a remarkably higher hospital mortality (10.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). At 5 years, the mortality rate was 110 (8.9%) versus 102 (8.3%) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.52; P = .35). Incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 175 (14.3) versus 169 (13.8) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.31; P = .65)., Conclusions: The present post hoc Arterial Revascularization Trial analysis supports the hypothesis that both off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass are equally effective and safe., (Copyright © 2017 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.

Background: There is still uncertainty about the safety of aprotinin for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was designed to compare survival after bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting. Many of the ART patients (≈30%) received perioperative aprotinin. We investigated the association between perioperative aprotinin administration and short-term (in-hospital) and long-term outcomes by performing a post hoc analysis of the ART., Methods and Results: Among patients enrolled in the ART (n=3102) from 2004 to 2007, we excluded those who did not undergo surgery (n=18) and those with no information about use of perioperative aprotinin (n=9). Finally, 836 of 3076 patients (27%) received aprotinin. Propensity matching was used to select 536 pairs for final comparison. Aprotinin was also associated with an increased risk of hospital mortality (9 [1.7%] versus 1 [0.2%]; odds ratio, 9.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-72.2; P =0.03), intra-aortic balloon pump insertion (37 [6.9%] versus 17 [3.2%]; odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.26-4.07; P =0.006), and acute kidney injury (102 [19.0%] versus 76 [14.2%]; odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.97; P =0.03). Aprotinin was not associated with a lower incidence of transfusion (37 [6.9%] versus 28 [5.2%]; odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.81-2.23; P =0.25) and reexploration (26 [4.9%] versus 19 [3.5%]; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.76-2.53; P =0.28). At 5 years, all-cause mortality was significantly increased in the aprotinin group (56 [10.6%] versus 38 [7.3%]; hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.0-2.28; P =0.045)., Conclusions: In the present post hoc ART analysis, aprotinin was associated with a significantly increased risk of early and late mortality., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN46552265., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objectives: The objective of the study was to investigate the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions, without restriction by journal, clinical condition, or specialty., Study Design and Setting: We evaluated a random sample of SRs assembled previously, which were indexed in MEDLINE® during February 2014, focused on a treatment or prevention question, and reported at least one meta-analysis. The reported statistical methods used in each SR were extracted from articles and online appendices by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate., Results: We evaluated 110 SRs; 78/110 (71%) were non-Cochrane SRs and 55/110 (50%) investigated a pharmacological intervention. The SRs presented a median of 13 (interquartile range: 5-27) meta-analytic effects. When considering the index (primary or first reported) meta-analysis of each SR, just over half (62/110 [56%]) used the random-effects model, but few (5/62 [8%]) interpreted the meta-analytic effect correctly (as the average of the intervention effects across all studies). A statistical test for funnel plot asymmetry was reported in 17/110 (15%) SRs; however, in only 4/17 (24%) did the test include the recommended number of at least 10 studies of varying size. Subgroup analyses accompanied 42/110 (38%) index meta-analyses, but findings were not interpreted with respect to a test for interaction in 29/42 (69%) cases, and the issue of potential confounding in the subgroup analyses was not raised in any SR., Conclusions: There is scope for improvement in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in SRs of therapeutic interventions. The involvement of statisticians on the SR team and establishment of partnerships between researchers with specialist expertise in SR methods and journal editors may help overcome these shortcomings., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process., Methods: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS., Results: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs., Conclusion: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs.

Objectives: To evaluate how often reproducible research practices, which allow others to recreate the findings of studies, given the original data, are used in systematic reviews (SRs) of biomedical research., Study Design and Setting: We evaluated a random sample of SRs indexed in MEDLINE during February 2014, which focused on a therapeutic intervention and reported at least one meta-analysis. Data on reproducible research practices in each SR were extracted using a 26-item form by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate. We explored whether the use of reproducible research practices was associated with an SR being a Cochrane review, as well as with the reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement., Results: We evaluated 110 SRs of therapeutic interventions, 78 (71%) of which were non-Cochrane SRs. Across the SRs, there were 2,139 meta-analytic effects (including subgroup meta-analytic effects and sensitivity analyses), 1,551 (73%) of which were reported in sufficient detail to recreate them. Systematic reviewers reported the data needed to recreate all meta-analytic effects in 72 (65%) SRs only. This percentage was higher in Cochrane than in non-Cochrane SRs (30/32 [94%] vs. 42/78 [54%]; risk ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.39-2.18). Systematic reviewers who reported imputing, algebraically manipulating, or obtaining some data from the study author/sponsor infrequently stated which specific data were handled in this way. Only 33 (30%) SRs mentioned access to data sets and statistical code used to perform analyses., Conclusion: Reproducible research practices are underused in SRs of biomedical interventions. Adoption of such practices facilitates identification of errors and allows the SR data to be reanalyzed., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of the INTERGROWTH-21 st project was to develop international, prescriptive standards for fetal growth assessed by ultrasound and fundal height, preterm postnatal growth, newborn size and body composition, maternal weight gain, and infant development at the age of 2 years. Hence, we have produced, based on World Health Organization recommendations, the first comprehensive set of international standards of optimal fetal and newborn growth that perfectly match the existing World Health Organization child growth standards. Uniquely, the same population was followed up longitudinally from 9 weeks of fetal life to 2 years of age, with growth, health, and nutritional status assessment at 2 years supporting the appropriateness of the population for construction of growth standards. The resulting package of clinical tools allows, for the first time, growth and development to be monitored from early pregnancy to infancy. The INTERGROWTH-21 st fetal growth standards, which are based on observing >4500 healthy pregnancies, nested in a study of >59,000 pregnancies from populations with low rates of adverse perinatal outcomes, show how fetuses should grow-rather than the more limited objective of past references, which describe how they have grown at specific times and locations. Our work has confirmed the fundamental biological principle that variation in human growth across different populations is mostly dependent on environmental, nutritional, and socioeconomic factors. We found that when mothers' nutritional and health needs are met and there are few environmental constraints on growth, <3.5% of the total variability of skeletal growth was due to differences between populations. We propose that not recognizing the concept of optimal growth could deprive the most vulnerable mothers and their babies of optimal care, because local growth charts normalize those at highest risk for growth restriction and overweight, and can be valuable for policymakers to ensure rigorous evaluation and effective resource allocation. We strongly encourage colleagues to join efforts to provide integrated, evidence-based growth monitoring to pregnant women and their infants worldwide. Presently, there are 23.3 million infants born small for gestational age in low- to middle-income countries according to the INTERGROWTH-21 st newborn size standards. We suggest that misclassification of these infants by using local charts could affect the delivery of optimal health care., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Retrospective studies provide conflicting interpretations of the effect of inherited genetic factors on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation on breast cancer outcomes in patients with young-onset breast cancer., Methods: We did a prospective cohort study of female patients recruited from 127 hospitals in the UK aged 40 years or younger at first diagnosis (by histological confirmation) of invasive breast cancer. Patients with a previous invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin cancer) were excluded. Patients were identified within 12 months of initial diagnosis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified using blood DNA collected at recruitment. Clinicopathological data, and data regarding treatment and long-term outcomes, including date and site of disease recurrence, were collected from routine medical records at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually until death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was overall survival for all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-positive) versus all non-carriers (BRCA-negative) at 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after diagnosis. A prespecified subgroup analysis of overall survival was done in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Recruitment was completed in 2008, and long-term follow-up is continuing., Findings: Between Jan 24, 2000, and Jan 24, 2008, we recruited 2733 women. Genotyping detected a pathogenic BRCA mutation in 338 (12%) patients (201 with BRCA1, 137 with BRCA2). After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 6·0-9·9), 651 (96%) of 678 deaths were due to breast cancer. There was no significant difference in overall survival between BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative patients in multivariable analyses at any timepoint (at 2 years: 97·0% [95% CI 94·5-98·4] vs 96·6% [95·8-97·3]; at 5 years: 83·8% [79·3-87·5] vs 85·0% [83·5-86·4]; at 10 years: 73·4% [67·4-78·5] vs 70·1% [67·7-72·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·76-1·22]; p=0·76). Of 558 patients with triple-negative breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers had better overall survival than non-carriers at 2 years (95% [95% CI 89-97] vs 91% [88-94]; HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·35-0·99]; p=0·047) but not 5 years (81% [73-87] vs 74% [70-78]; HR 1·13 [0·70-1·84]; p=0·62) or 10 years (72% [62-80] vs 69% [63-74]; HR 2·12 [0·82-5·49]; p= 0·12)., Interpretation: Patients with young-onset breast cancer who carry a BRCA mutation have similar survival as non-carriers. However, BRCA mutation carriers with triple-negative breast cancer might have a survival advantage during the first few years after diagnosis compared with non-carriers. Decisions about timing of additional surgery aimed at reducing future second primary-cancer risks should take into account patient prognosis associated with the first malignancy and patient preferences., Funding: Cancer Research UK, the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Wessex Cancer Trust, Breast Cancer Now, and the PPP Healthcare Medical Trust Grant., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)