There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT)

Background: Although medical journals endorse reporting guidelines, authors often struggle to find and use the right one for their study type and topic. The UK EQUATOR Centre developed the GoodReports website to direct authors to appropriate guidance. Pilot data suggested that authors did not improve their manuscripts when advised to use a particular reporting guideline by GoodReports.org at journal submission stage. User feedback suggested the checklist format of most reporting guidelines does not encourage use during manuscript writing. We tested whether providing customized reporting guidance within writing templates for use throughout the writing process resulted in clearer and more complete reporting than only giving advice on which reporting guideline to use. Design and methods: GRReaT was a two-group parallel 1:1 randomized trial with a target sample size of 206. Participants were lead authors at an early stage of writing up a health-related study. Eligible study designs were cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control study, randomized trial, and systematic review. After randomization, the intervention group received an article template including items from the appropriate reporting guideline and links to explanations and examples. The control group received a reporting guideline recommendation and general advice on reporting. Participants sent their completed manuscripts to the GRReaT team before submitting for publication, for completeness of each item in the title, methods, and results section of the corresponding reporting guideline. The primary outcome was reporting completeness against the corresponding reporting guideline. Participants were not blinded to allocation. Assessors were blind to group allocation. As a recruitment incentive, all participants received a feedback report identifying missing or inadequately reported items in these three sections. Results: Between 9 June 2021 and 30 June 2023, we randomized 130 participants, 65 to the intervention and 65 to the control group. We present findings from the assessment of reporting completeness for the 37 completed manuscripts we received, 18 in the intervention group and 19 in the control group. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of completely reported items from the title, methods, and results sections of the manuscripts (primary outcome) was 0.57 (0.18) in the intervention group and 0.50 (0.17) in the control group. The mean difference between the two groups was 0.069 (95% CI -0.046 to 0.184; p = 0.231). In the sensitivity analysis, when partially reported items were counted as completely reported, the mean (standard deviation) proportion of completely reported items was 0.75 (0.15) in the intervention group and 0.71 (0.11) in the control group. The mean difference between the two groups was 0.036 (95% CI -0.127 to 0.055; p = 0.423). Conclusion: As the dropout rate was higher than expected, we did not reach the recruitment target, and the difference between groups was not statistically significant. We therefore found no evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines, increases reporting completeness. We discuss the challenges faced when conducting the trial and suggest how future research testing innovative ways of improving reporting could be designed to improve recruitment and reduce dropouts

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources

Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

Objectives: Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods: We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorization. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a subset of 32 systematic reviews. Data extracted from these systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorized against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholders were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results: The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either one-time, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions: The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarize how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. The ACTIVE framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future reviews.</p

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Atorvastatin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with increased cardiovascular event (CVE) risk. The impact of statins in RA is not established. We assessed whether atorvastatin is superior to placebo for the primary prevention of CVEs in RA patients. Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial was designed to detect a 32% CVE risk reduction based on an estimated 1.6% per annum event rate with 80% power at P 50 years or with a disease duration of >10 years who did not have clinical atherosclerosis, diabetes, or myopathy received atorvastatin 40 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or any arterial revascularization. Secondary and tertiary end points included plasma lipids and safety. Results: A total of 3,002 patients (mean age 61 years; 74% female) were followed up for a median of 2.51 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.90, 3.49 years) (7,827 patient‐years). The study was terminated early due to a lower than expected event rate (0.70% per annum). Of the 1,504 patients receiving atorvastatin, 24 (1.6%) experienced a primary end point, compared with 36 (2.4%) of the 1,498 receiving placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.39, 1.11]; P = 0.115 and adjusted HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32, 1.15]; P = 0.127). At trial end, patients receiving atorvastatin had a mean ± SD low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level 0.77 ± 0.04 mmoles/liter lower than those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). C‐reactive protein level was also significantly lower in the atorvastatin group than the placebo group (median 2.59 mg/liter [IQR 0.94, 6.08] versus 3.60 mg/liter [IQR 1.47, 7.49]; P < 0.0001). CVE risk reduction per mmole/liter reduction in LDL cholesterol was 42% (95% CI −14%, 70%). The rates of adverse events in the atorvastatin group (n = 298 [19.8%]) and placebo group (n = 292 [19.5%]) were similar. Conclusion: Atorvastatin 40 mg daily is safe and results in a significantly greater reduction of LDL cholesterol level than placebo in patients with RA. The 34% CVE risk reduction is consistent with the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration meta‐analysis of statin effects in other populations

GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT) data, analytic code and supplementary materials

GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT) data, code and supplementary material

Database of reporting guideline usage licences

This database was compiled to allow the GoodReports team and other to identify reporting guidelines and explanation and elaboration papers which can be used without permission in writing aids and tool

GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT) data, analytic code and supplementary materials

GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT) data, code and supplementary material