Describing the landscape of nutrition- and diet-related randomized controlled trials: meta-research study of protocols published between 2012 and 2022.

Background: Publishing protocols promotes transparency and reproducibility. The scope and methods of protocols for nutrition- and diet-related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been investigated yet.

Objective: Map the landscape of nutrition- and diet-related interventions research.

Tenzing Assisted Delivery of Aspiration (TADA) technique for thrombectomy of medium vessel occlusions using the Freeclimb 54 catheter: multicenter experience.

Background: Medium vessel occlusions (MeVOs) account for 25-40% of acute ischemic stroke. The Tenzing 5 (Route 92 Medical, San Mateo, California, USA) and FreeClimb 54 (Route 92 Medical, San Mateo, California, USA) catheter is a novel delivery-aspiration catheter combination designed to facilitate aspiration thrombectomy (AT) of MeVOs. We report our clinical experience using the Tenzing assisted delivery of aspiration (TADA) technique with FreeClimb 54 for first-line AT of MeVO.

Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs).

Introduction: The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved.

Biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research.

We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021.

A plan for systematic reviews for high-need areas in forensic science.

Forensic scientific practitioners and researchers must navigate a rapidly growing body of research. This makes it increasingly challenging to inform courts, lawyers, and other decision makers about the state of the field, thus heightening the chances of wrongful convictions and acquittals. When similar challenges have arisen in other fields, they have turned to systematic reviews, which are research reviews that use formal, articulated methods to provide a comprehensive summary of the literature on a specific research question.

"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But do awards incentivize greater transparency, inclusivity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria.

Reporting completeness of nutrition and diet-related randomised controlled trials protocols.

Background And Aims: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

What do Australians affected by cancer think about oncology researchers sharing research data? A cross-sectional survey.

Aim: Previous research has shown patients and the public in Australia generally support medical researchers in making de-identified research data available to other scientists. However, this research has focussed on certain types of data and recipients. We surveyed Australians affected by cancer to characterize their attitudes toward the sharing of research data with multiple third parties, including the public.

Identification of application and interpretation errors that can occur in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic review.

Objectives: To generate a bank of items describing application and interpretation errors that can arise in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions.

Study Design And Setting: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched to identify studies describing types of errors in meta-analyses. Descriptions of errors and supporting quotes were extracted by multiple authors.

Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed.

Background: Interrupted time series (ITS) studies contribute importantly to systematic reviews of population-level interventions. We aimed to develop and validate search filters to retrieve ITS studies in MEDLINE and PubMed.

Methods: A total of 1017 known ITS studies (published 2013-2017) were analysed using text mining to generate candidate terms.

Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research.

We aimed to explore, in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes, whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available. We randomly selected SRs of food/diet and health-related outcomes published between January 2018 and June 2019. We selected the first presented meta-analysis in each review (index meta-analysis), and extracted from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey.

Background: Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.

Methods: We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.

Results: We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g.

Variation observed in consensus judgments between pairs of reviewers when assessing the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research.

Objectives: To evaluate the risk of bias due to missing evidence in a sample of published meta-analyses of nutrition research using the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence (ROB-ME) tool and determine inter-rater agreement in assessments.

Study Design And Setting: We assembled a random sample of 42 meta-analyses of nutrition research. Eight assessors were randomly assigned to one of four pairs.

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence.

Background: Incomplete reporting about what systematic reviewers did and what they found prevents users of the report from being able to fully interpret the findings and understand the limitations of the underlying evidence. Reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA statement and its extensions are designed to improve reporting. However, there are important inconsistencies across the various PRISMA reporting guidelines, which causes confusion and misinterpretation.

Efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in hand osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objectives: This study aimed at systematically review the evidence for the efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitors on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis.

Methods: Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of TNF inhibitors in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Objectives: To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Data Sources: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021.

Credibility at stake: only two-thirds of randomized trials of nutrition interventions are registered and lack transparency in outcome and treatment effect definitions.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the adherence of randomized controlled trials of nutrition interventions to transparency practices informing assessments of selective reporting biases, including the availability of a trial registration entry, protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP).

Study Design And Setting: Retrospective observational study with cross-sectional design. We systematically searched for trials published from 1 July 2019, to 30 June 2020, and included a randomly selected sample of 400 studies.

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study.

Background: COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication.