Some CPG authors failed to fully disclose all financial conflicts of interest, and most guideline development panels and chairpersons had conflicts. In addition, adherence to IOM standards for guideline development was lacking. This study is relevant to CPG panels authoring recommendations, physicians implementing CPGs to guide patient care, and the organizations establishing policies for guideline development.

Our study found that trials that provided strong evidence for orthopaedic surgery guidelines were largely fragile, underpowered, and at risk of bias.

ObjectivesIt has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.ResultsA total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols.ConclusionsThe presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

No abstract

A new type of clinical summary, produced by copying standard descriptions of diseases on to a computer screen and editing them to match a patient's findings and diagnoses, was updated and reprinted as the patient's condition changed in the ward or as an outpatient. When this method was used to produce typed medical discharge summaries over a three month period, 73 out of 91 (80%) were sent out within a week after discharge compared with five out of 56 (9%) conventionally typed summaries received in a single general practice. Even completely new computerised summaries are quicker for the secretary to produce than conventional summaries, and the computerised summaries are designed to be scanned rapidly for relevant information. They can also be used to collect data automatically for research, clinical audit, and resource management.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest-level of evidence among primary research in cardiovascular medicine. Yet, even the best trial may be less useful if it fails to provide an accurate means of reproducibility. Unfortunately, discrepancies in the standards of trial reporting have been persistent in previous trials. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist aims to improve research efficacy by setting standards for quality intervention reporting and reproducibility. The goal of this study was to assess adherence to the TIDieR checklist among RCTs published in cardiovascular health journals. We also compared the quality of intervention reporting before and after the publication of TIDieR.MethodsThis cross-sectional, methodological study analysed 101 trials published within high-impact cardiology journals. Our primary objective was to assess overall adherence to the TIDieR checklist. Our secondary objective was to use an interrupted time-series analysis to determine if intervention reporting increased following the publication of TIDieR in March 2014. Additionally, we used generalised estimating equations to identify trial characteristics associated with intervention reporting.ResultsTrials in our sample reported 8.6/12 TIDieR checklist items, on average. The most under-reported items were those for describing the expertise of the interventionists and for describing the location of the intervention.ConclusionImproved outcome reporting and intervention reproducibility among RCTs are greatly needed in cardiovascular medicine. Clinicians and researchers should advocate for the ethical publication of complete, translatable and replicable clinical research results.

The development of clinical practice guidelines is a unique opportunity to simultaneously redefine day-to-day decision-making and provide a critical analysis of the status of the literature. Upon our search of the literature since the guidelines introduction, we have found that some inconclusive areas have received more attention than others. Our results should guide researchers towards conducting research on the topics most in need and, by doing so, strengthen the clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Background:We conducted a study of recommendations from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guideline, “Optimizing the Management of Rotator Cuff Problems.” Using these recommendations, we conducted searches of clinical trial registries and bibliographic databases to note the extent to which new research has been undertaken to address areas of deficiency.Hypothesis:Newly conducted research regarding rotator cuff repair and injury is available that will fill knowledge gaps identified by the AAOS guideline.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:For each recommendation in the AAOS guideline, we created PICO (participants, intervention, comparator, outcome) questions and search strings. Searches were conducted of ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE via PubMed, and EMBASE to locate studies undertaken after the final literature search performed by the AAOS work group.Results:We located 210 newly registered trials and 448 published studies that are relevant to the recommendations made in the rotator cuff guideline. The majority of the recommendations have been addressed by relevant registered trials or published studies. Of the 448 published studies, 185 directly addressed the guideline recommendations. Additionally, 71% of the 185 published studies directly addressing the recommendations were randomized trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. The most important finding of our study was that the recommendations in the AAOS rotator cuff guideline have been adequately addressed.Conclusion:Orthopaedic researchers have adequately addressed knowledge gaps regarding rotator cuff repair treatment and management options. As such, the AAOS may consider a guideline update to ensure that recommendations reflect current findings in orthopaedic literature.