There has been a rapid increase in resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) literature in the past few years. We aim to highlight the variability in the current reporting practices of rs-fMRI acquisition and preprocessing parameters. The PubMed database was searched for the selection of appropriate articles in the rs-fMRI literature and the most recent 100 articles were selected based on our criteria. These articles were evaluated based on a checklist for reporting of certain preprocessing steps. All of the studies reported the temporal resolution for the scan and the software used for the analysis. Less than half of the studies reported physiologic monitoring, despiking, global signal regression, framewise displacement, and volume censoring. A majority of the studies mentioned the scanning duration, eye status, and smoothing kernel. Overall, we demonstrate the wide variability in reporting of preprocessing methods in rs-fMRI studies. Although there might be potential variability in reporting across studies due to individual requirements for a study, we suggest the need for standardizing reporting guidelines to ensure reproducibility.

Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ 2 and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P =0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P =0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, −0.1% (−3.7% to 3.5%); P =0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P =0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract