Cardiovascular diseases, overweight, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology to lower the risk of death and progression of cardiovascular disease in patients with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight. CagriSema is currently not approved, but several phase III trials are ongoing.

No previous systematic review has investigated the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and liraglutide, which may not be disease-specific, on hard binary outcomes for all trial populations at increased risk of cardiovascular events.

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. We expect to perform the literature search in December 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will include randomised trials assessing the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and/or liraglutide in participants with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause hospitalisation. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses and network meta-analysis, risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V. 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach.

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD42024623312.

Current pharmacological treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) often fail to provide adequate pain relief. However, in the recent SENZA-PDN study, high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) demonstrated significant long-term improvements in lower limb pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a PDN population. Furthermore, more than half of 10 kHz SCS recipients showed improved sensory function based on non-blinded clinical assessments in post hoc analysis. We report the design of the PDN-Sensory study, which aims to evaluate changes in pain and neurological function with 10 kHz SCS in the treatment of PDN. The study will include objective measures of neurological function, including the modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS) and intraepidermal nerve fibre density (IENFD).

This multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial will compare conventional medical management (CMM) with 10 kHz SCS+CMM in individuals with diabetes and chronic, intractable lower limb pain due to PDN. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to CMM alone or 10 kHz SCS+CMM, with optional crossover at 6 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants at 6 months achieving ≥50% pain relief from baseline. The key secondary endpoint is the proportion of participants at 6 months with a reduction in mTCNS of ≥3 points from baseline (excluding changes in foot pain). Additional endpoints at 6 and 12 months include changes from baseline in mTCNS, IENFD, 7-day averaged pain score, pain-related interference, HRQoL, sleep, psychological outcomes, functional status and metabolic parameters.

The study protocol received central approval from the Western Institutional Review Board (IRB #20230954). Local IRB approval will be required before initiation of the study at each participating clinical site. The study complies with Good Clinical Practice guidelines (ISO 14155), the Declaration of Helsinki, and all applicable national, federal and local regulatory requirements. Dissemination plans include presentations at national and international conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal with open access.

NCT05777317.

Data quality in epidemiological studies is a basic requirement for good scientific research. The aim of this study was to examine an important indicator of data quality, data completeness, by investigating predictors of missing data.

Baseline data of a cohort study, the population-based Hamburg City Health Study, were used. Missingness was investigated at the levels of a whole research unit, on the two segments of health service utilisation and psychosocial variables, and two sensitive items (income and number of sexual partners). Predictors for missingness were sociodemographic variables, cognitive abilities and the mode of data collection. Associations were estimated using binary and multinomial logistic regression models.

Of 10 000 participants (mean age=62.4 years; 51.1% women), 32.9% had complete data at the unit level, 66.8% had partially missing data and 0.3% missed all items. The highest proportions of missing values were found for income (27.8%) and the number of sexual partners (36.7%). At both the unit, segment and item level, older age, female sex, low education, a foreign mother language and cognitive impairment were significant predictors for missingness.

For analysing population-based data, dealing with missingness is equally important at all levels of analysis. During the design and conduct of the study, the identified groups may be targeted to reach higher levels of data completeness.

Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) claim to use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, but its implementation varies. This suggests that CPG developers, methodologists and users would benefit from an instrument to evaluate the extent to which CPGs adhere to GRADE approach. Such a structured instrument is currently unavailable. Accordingly, this study will develop an evaluation instrument for assessing guideline adherence to the GRADE approach, which we have named ‘GRADE-Check’. The goal is to target items to which CPGs fail to adhere and that potentially have serious consequences resulting in inaccuracies in certainty of evidence and inappropriate direction or strength of recommendations, thereby discriminating across CPGs in issues of importance.

The panel will include up to 25 individuals with specific knowledge and expertise, including experienced authors, educators and methodologists on CPGs methodology and GRADE approach from relevant organisations. The instrument will focus on the key elements of GRADE, aiming for clarity for GRADE experts and non-GRADE experts to apply. The development process for GRADE-Check will consist of the following five phases: (1) recruitment of a panel of GRADE experts; (2) development of objectives and scope for the development of GRADE-Check and criteria for item selection; (3) generation of candidate items through a literature review and panel consultation; (4) panellist discussion to construct the initial draft and extended explanation manual and (5) user testing.

This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (no. (2025047K)). Our research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at academic conferences. Additionally, the dissemination plan will include considerations for the development of implementation manuals, a dedicated project website and training tools.

Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.

This is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.

This protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.

To increase the sustainability of healthcare, clinical trials must assess the environmental impact of interventions alongside clinical outcomes. This should be guided by Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions, which will be developed by The Implementing Climate and Environmental Outcomes in Trials Group. The objective of the scoping review is to describe the existing methods for reporting and measuring environmental outcomes in randomised trials. The results will be used to inform the future development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on environmental outcomes (SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE).

This protocol outlines the methodology for a scoping review, which will be conducted in two distinct sections: (1) identifying any existing guidelines, reviews or methodological studies describing environmental impacts of interventions and (2) identifying how environmental outcomes are reported in randomised trial protocols and trial results. A search specialist will search major medical databases, reference lists of trial publications and clinical trial registries to identify relevant publications. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by two review authors. Based on the results, a preliminary list of items for the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed.

This study does not include any human participants, and ethics approval is not required according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings from the scoping review will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be used to inform the design of a Delphi survey of relevant stakeholders.

Registered with Open Science 28 of February 2025.

The WHO has declared climate change the defining public health challenge of the 21st century. Incorporating climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials is essential for enhancing healthcare treatments’ sustainability and safeguarding global health. To implement such outcomes, it is necessary to establish a framework for unbiased and transparent planning and reporting. We aim to develop extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT 2025) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2025) statements by introducing guidelines for reporting climate and environmental outcomes.

This is a protocol for SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on reporting climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials termed SPIRIT-Implementing Climate and Environmental (ICE) and CONSORT-ICE. The development of the extensions will consist of five phases: phase 1—project launch, phase 2—review of the literature, phase 3—Delphi survey, phase 4—consensus meeting and phase 5—dissemination and implementation. The phases are expected to overlap. The SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE extensions will be developed in parallel. The extensions will guide researchers on how and what to report when assessing climate and environmental outcomes.

The protocol was submitted to the Danish Research Ethics Committees, Denmark in June 2025. Ethics approval is expected in September 2025. The SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Fathers of preterm infants wish to be actively involved and attentive in caring for their children. The positive impacts of paternal caregiving on preterm infants’ cognitive and social development have been recognised. Awareness of the need to support fathers during early parenthood is increasing, but fathers may feel excluded when their infants are in the neonatal intensive care unit. Here, we present the protocol for a study involving the development and national implementation of a complex intervention supporting first-time fathers of preterm infants in early parenthood.

The study adheres to the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. A multicentre, prospective, non-blinded, quasi-experimental design will be applied to evaluate the effect of a clinical and technology-based intervention targeting both nurses and the fathers. Outcomes from participants enrolled during the control (2023–2024) and intervention (2025–2026) periods, comprising 295 fathers and their partners, will be compared. Effects on parental confidence, stress, depression and mood and family and reflective functioning as well as infants’ emotional and social development will be assessed. A comprehensive process evaluation will be applied using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

The study has been registered at Clinicaltrials.org [no. NCT0 6 116 747 (The SUPPORTED study – First-time Fathers of Preterm Infants), approved on 3 November 2023]. The Danish Data Protection Agency has approved the study (P-2022–792). The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

NCT06116747.

Given that low retention rates are a prevalent challenge in clinical trials, which ultimately affects trial validity, it is recommended that interventions be developed and evaluated to increase trial retention. In the context of trial retention, incorporating behavioural science is endorsed, as it provides a theoretical foundation for considering human behaviour. We hypothesised that an intervention informed by self-determination theory could increase retention in a randomised allergy trial on intralymphatic immunotherapy, as the support of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness is anticipated to lead to more sustained engagement and better outcomes.

To assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and evaluation design, following the complex intervention framework by the Medical Research Council, before proceeding to a randomised evaluation.

A parallel two-arm randomised feasibility study was conducted within the randomised allergy trial.

All participants at one Danish site were eligible for recruitment.

The intervention was a web app informed by self-determination theory to support the basic psychological needs through its thoughtfully designed features. Participants were allocated unblinded across treatment groups to complete daily online questionnaires over a 100-day period from May to August 2022. All participants received a daily text message with a link for the questionnaires. On completion, participants in the control group received a confirmation message, while participants in the intervention group had a browser with the menu of the web app opened for them. The features within the menu were voluntary to use.

The prespecified assessments included evaluating the recruitment rate, retention rate (which reflected both sustained participation and the proportion of completed daily questionnaire entries), the suitability of outcome measures and the acceptability of the intervention and evaluation design to both participants and staff. Qualitative data were collected through a collaborative learning process with participants from the intervention group in November 2022.

A total of 30 participants were invited, randomly assigned 1:1 and analysed, resulting in a recruitment rate of 100%. None were lost to follow-up as all remained in the study for the entire duration. The response rate was 84.5% in the intervention group and 79.1% in the control group, indicating satisfactory retention. Outcome measures were deemed appropriate. No unintended adverse events were identified. The collaborative learning meetings involved three participants in the first meeting and two in the second, comprising a total of five different individuals. Participants found the intervention acceptable. They used it differently but agreed that its components were useful. Technical issues needed fixing, and voluntary free text boxes and registration of medication dosage should be added.

The intervention and evaluation design were assessed as acceptable and feasible. Technical issues were fixed, and additional response options were added before a randomised evaluation.

ILIT.NU: EudraCT 2020-001060-28. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05191186.