ImportanceClinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.ObjectiveTo develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.Evidence ReviewUsing the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.FindingsThe scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).Conclusions and RelevanceThis CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Background:As artificial intelligence (AI) approaches in research increase and AI becomes more integrated into medicine, there is a need to understand perspectives from members of the Canadian public and medical community. The aim of this project was to investigate current perspectives on ethical issues surrounding AI in health care. Methods:In this qualitative study, adult patients with meningioma and their caregivers were recruited consecutively (August 2018-February 2019) from a neurosurgical clinic in Toronto. Health care providers caring for these patients were recruited through snowball sampling. Based on a nonsystematic literature search, we constructed 3 vignettes that sought participants' views on hypothetical issues surrounding potential AI applications in health care. The vignettes were presented to participants in interviews, which lasted 15-45 minutes. Responses were transcribed and coded for concepts, frequency of response types and larger concepts emerging from the interview. Results:We interviewed 30 participants: 18 patients, 7 caregivers and 5 health care providers. For each question, a variable number of responses were recorded. The majority of participants endorsed nonconsented use of health data but advocated for disclosure and transparency. Few patients and caregivers felt that allocation of health resources should be done via computerized output, and a majority stated that it was inappropriate to delegate such decisions to a computer. Almost all participants felt that selling health data should be prohibited, and a minority stated that less privacy is acceptable for the goal of improving health. Certain caveats were identified, including the desire for deidentification of data and use within trusted institutions.Interpretation: In this preliminary study, patients and caregivers reported a mixture of hopefulness and concern around the use of AI in health care research, whereas providers were generally more skeptical. These findings provide a point of departure for institutions adopting health AI solutions to consider the ethical implications of this work by understanding stakeholders' perspectives. Abstract Research OPEN CMAJ OPEN, 8(1) E91 Affiliations: Division of Neurosurgery (McCradden,

ImportanceComplete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.ObjectiveTo develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.Evidence ReviewUsing the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.FindingsThe scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).Conclusions and RelevanceThis SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

BackgroundPharmacological treatments targeting the neuroendocrine stress response may hold special promise in secondary prevention of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, findings from clinical trials have been inconsistent and the efficacy of specific drugs, their temporal window of efficacy, effective doses and the characteristics of likely treatment responders remain unclear.MethodUsing an experimental human model of distressing involuntary memory formation, we compare the effects of two drugs that have theoretical or empirical support as secondary preventive agents in PTSD. Eighty-eight healthy women (average age: 23.5 years) received oral propranolol (80 mg), hydrocortisone (30 mg), or matched placebo immediately after viewing a ‘trauma film’. They then completed daily, time-stamped intrusion diaries for 1 week, at the end of which, voluntary memory was tested.ResultsWhile neither drug affected voluntary memory for the trauma narrative, propranolol treatment was associated with 42% fewer, and hydrocortisone with 55% fewer intrusions across the week, relative to placebo. Additionally, propranolol reduced general trauma-like symptoms, and post-drug cortisol levels were negatively correlated with intrusion frequency in the hydrocortisone group.ConclusionsOverall, this study shows substantial reductions in intrusive memories and preserved voluntary narrative-declarative memory following either propranolol or hydrocortisone in an experimental model of psychological trauma. As such, despite some inconsistencies in clinical trials, our findings support continued investigation of propranolol and hydrocortisone as secondary preventive agents for re-experiencing symptoms of PTSD. The findings also suggest that it is critical for future research to identify the conditions governing the preventive efficacy of these drugs in PTSD.

Background Meningiomas are the most common primary benign brain neoplasms, but despite their commonality, the supportive needs of this patient population have been overlooked. The aim of this study is to identify unmet needs of meningioma patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Methods We adopted a patient-centered approach by using qualitative interviewing with patients diagnosed with a meningioma who have undergone treatment in the last 10 years since the date of their interview. Informal caregivers (family and/or friends) of the patient population and health care providers who are normally involved in the management and care of meningioma patients were also interviewed. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis. Results Of the 50 participants interviewed, there were 30 patients, 12 caregivers, and 8 health care professionals. Thematic analysis revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) access to targeted postoperative care, (2) financial struggles for patients and their families, (3) lack of information specific to meningiomas and postsurgical management, and (4) lack of psychosocial support. Conclusion This study identified supportive needs specific to the meningioma patient population, which predominantly falls within the postoperative phase. The postoperative journey of this patient population could potentially extend to the rest of the patient’s life, which necessitates resources and information directed to support postoperative recovery and management. The development of directly relevant supportive resources that support meningioma patients in their postoperative recovery is necessary to improve the health-related quality of life in this patient population.

OBJECTIVE Meningiomas can have significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient-centered, disease-specific instruments for assessing HRQOL in these patients are lacking. To this end, the authors sought to develop and validate a meningioma-specific HRQOL questionnaire through a standardized, patient-centered questionnaire development methodology. METHODS The development of the questionnaire involved three main phases: item generation, item reduction, and validation. Item generation consisted of semistructured interviews with patients (n = 30), informal caregivers (n = 12), and healthcare providers (n = 8) to create a preliminary list of items. Item reduction with 60 patients was guided by the clinical impact method, multiple correspondence analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis. The validation phase involved 162 patients and collected evidence on extreme-groups validity; concurrent validity with the SF-36, FACT-Br, and EQ-5D; and test-retest reliability. The questionnaire takes on average 11 minutes to complete. RESULTS The meningioma-specific quality-of-life questionnaire (MQOL) consists of 70 items representing 9 domains. Cronbach’s alpha for each domain ranged from 0.61 to 0.91. Concurrent validity testing demonstrated construct validity, while extreme-groups testing (p = 1.45E-11) confirmed the MQOL’s ability to distinguish between different groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS The MQOL is a validated, reliable, and feasible questionnaire designed specifically for evaluating QOL in meningioma patients. This disease-specific questionnaire will be fundamentally helpful in better understanding and capturing HRQOL in the meningioma patient population and can be used in both clinical and research settings.

No abstract

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public’s understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). Methods and analysis This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population’s results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. Ethics and dissemination Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990. Registered on May 3, 2022