Target trial emulation (TTE) has emerged as a methodological framework to strengthen causal inference from observational health data when randomised controlled trials are infeasible. The credibility of TTE studies depends not only on rigorous design and transparent reporting, but also on their relevance and acceptability to patients and the public. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) has been shown to enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of health research by shaping research priorities, informing study design and ensuring outcomes reflect patient perspectives. However, the extent to which PPIE has been incorporated into TTE studies remains unclear. This scoping review aims to systematically map the use and reporting of PPIE in published TTE studies.

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from January 2011 to present, limited to English-language publications. Eligible studies will be studies that self-identify as using the TTE framework and report empirical analyses of health outcomes using observational or trial data. We will exclude protocols, methodological or simulation-only studies, preprints, conference abstracts and grey literature. Three reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, with disagreements resolved by discussion or adjudication. Data extraction will include study characteristics and PPIE information guided by the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form checklist. Findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics, tables, figures and narrative synthesis.

Ethics approval is not required, as this review will use publicly available data. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences.

Enabling the reuse of participant-level health data is central to advancing public health and clinical practice. Measuring knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to data sharing is essential for understanding how stakeholders perceive data reuse and where further investment is needed. We conducted a measurement systematic review to identify and describe the development, scope and measurement properties of quantitative surveys assessing data-sharing-related KAP in biomedical research.

Systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) approach.

Ovid (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and HaPI were searched for relevant surveys from 1 January 2000 to 7 April 2021. The Ovid (MEDLINE) search was updated on 30 May 2022 and 15 April 2024.

Quantitative surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, behaviours or practices related to sharing or reusing participant-level health data were included.

Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and, where possible, applied the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to assess survey measurement properties. We summarised survey scope, target populations, data types, development and measurement properties narratively. Due to substantial heterogeneity, survey findings were not compared across studies.

We screened 3684 title-abstracts, reviewed 104 full texts and extracted data from 72 publications representing 60 independent surveys. Most surveys originated from high-income countries and were used only once. Fewer than one-third reported pilot testing. Only six surveys provided sufficient information to apply COSMIN, and only three reported measurement properties, indicating low certainty in the available evidence.

This is the first systematic comparison of the development and measurement properties of quantitative survey instruments assessing data-reuse KAP. Most surveys lacked rigorous development and reporting, limiting their utility for comparing KAP related to data sharing across stakeholders and settings. The review findings will inform the creation of a cross-country, cross-disciplinary question bank to support future tool development.

CRD42021243926.

Stakeholder involvement in research processes is widely recommended to enhance the relevance, quality and uptake of research findings. However, existing studies highlight persistent challenges in engaging family caregivers in co-design research. This gap may result in research outcomes that fail to reflect family caregivers’ needs and preferences, contradicting the core purpose of co-design. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the available evidence on family caregivers’ experiences of involvement in co-design research and to generate evidence-based strategies to support effective engagement.

This systematic review will be conducted using a meta-aggregative approach, following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI’s) Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Systematic searches will be conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO, with no date restrictions. Preliminary searches were performed in EMBASE between September and October 2025. Qualitative primary studies that explore family caregivers’ experiences of involvement in co-design research will be included. Study selection and quality appraisal will be performed independently by two researchers using predefined protocols, disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. After calibration, a single reviewer will extract the data using a customised data extraction template with the dataset distributed among the authors. The first author will then review all extractions. Data will be analysed following JBI’s meta-aggregative method, and results will be presented in narrative summaries, tables and diagrams. The findings will inform strategies for stakeholder involvement in future co-design research. Family caregivers and co-design researchers will be involved in reviewing and revising generated recommendations to enhance their relevance and practical utility.

This protocol does not involve human participants. The findings of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences and meetings.

CRD420251229190.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving, offering an expanding suite of capabilities that go beyond the traditional focus on prediction and classification. Generative AI (GenAI) and agentic AI could create transformative practices to support real-world evidence (RWE) generation for health research by streamlining studies, accelerating insights and improving decision-making. However, there is no published overview available describing the range of applications in RWE generation. This review aims to describe where and how genAI and agentic AI are applied across the domains of healthcare research tasks for RWE generation. Additionally, to map applications by tasks and methods across the product lifecycle continuum, and to identify emerging gaps and opportunities.

This Living Scoping Review (LSR) will include studies reporting an application and/or evaluation of genAI or agentic AI applied to one or more RWE generation research tasks. Searches will be conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and additional sources (eg, grey literature). Citations will be independently screened by two human senior reviewers for a substantive training dataset and a commercially available screening algorithm (Robot Screener) will complete screening with a human reviewer. The LSR will include reports of studies (primary or reviews) describing and/or evaluating the application of any genAI model for RWE generation in healthcare, in English, published from 1 January 2025 to the date of search. Data will be extracted from all studies included in the LSR by one independent senior reviewer using a piloted template, with 10% quality check by a second senior reviewer. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the applications of genAI per RWE research task, and the results of genAI evaluations. Thematic analysis will be used to describe genAI application patterns, trends, gaps and opportunities. The LSR protocol and reports will be updated annually, and findings will be published on a publicly available website (eg, ISPE—the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology).

Ethical approval is not required due to use of previously published data. Planned dissemination includes peer-reviewed publication, presentation and short summaries.

Temporary childbirth migration (TCM), where women return to their natal homes for pregnancy, delivery or postpartum for a limited duration, is a long-standing sociocultural practice in India. While often motivated by familial support and traditional norms, its implications for maternal and child health and health system engagement remain poorly understood. This study aims to quantify the impact of TCM on maternal and newborn outcomes and to explore how continuity of perinatal care and social support mediate these relationships.

We are conducting a three-site, community-based, prospective cohort study across the Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites of Vadu (Maharashtra), Sevagram (Maharashtra) and DEESHA (Delhi). A total of 3000 pregnant women will be enrolled in pregnancy (

This study has been approved by the Ethics committees at the KEM Hospital Research Centre Pune (KEMHRC/RVM/EC/1931), Society for Applied Studies (SAS/ERC/TCM Study/2024), Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (MGIMS/lEC/COMMED/8412023) and University of California San Francisco (22-36484). All research activities are conducted in accordance with Indian Council of Medical Research Guidelines for biomedical research and the Declaration of Helsinki. On study completion, findings will be disseminated to diverse local, national and global stakeholders and published in academic journals.

CTRI/2024/02/062881.

Racialised immigrant communities in Western nations face disproportionate risks for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs) due to systemic barriers, including racism, stigma and limited access to culturally appropriate care. While the need is well-established, a comprehensive synthesis of effective, culturally responsive sexual health interventions is lacking. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on sexual health intervention needs and protective factors of racialised immigrants, and to identify and describe existing culturally appropriate programmes in Western nations.

The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and be reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A systematic search strategy, developed and peer-reviewed by a health sciences librarian, will be executed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus, alongside grey literature sources, with no date limit. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts and full texts against the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardised tool, analysed via narrative synthesis and framed by a socio-ecological model to categorise interventions across individual, interpersonal, community and structural levels.

Ethical approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, academic presentations and tailored summaries for community organisations and policy-makers to ensure practical application.

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9qah6).

To test the agreement and usability of a novel quality appraisal tool: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews of Prognostic Factor studies (AMSTAR-PF).

Observational study.

14 appraisers of varied experience levels and backgrounds, including undergraduate, master’s and PhD students, postgraduate researchers, research fellows and clinicians.

Eight systematic reviews were rated by all reviewers using AMSTAR-PF.

Planned measures included intrapair and inter-pair agreement using Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa, time of use and time to reach consensus. Interrater agreement was an added measure, and Gwet’s agreement coefficient was calculated and presented due to its greater stability across agreement levels. The percentage of intrapair agreements identical or one category apart was also presented.

Interrater agreement averaged 0.59 (range 0.21–0.90), inter-pair agreement 0.61 (range 0.24–0.91) and intrapair agreement 0.75 (range 0.45–0.95) across the domains, with agreement for the overall rating 0.46 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for interrater agreement, 0.46 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.74) for inter-pair agreement and 0.68 (range of averages 0.22–1.00) for intrapair agreement. The majority (60.7%) of intrapair ratings were identical, with 94.6% of final ratings either identical or only one category different for the overall appraisal. The time taken to appraise a study with AMSTAR-PF improved with use and averaged around 34 min after the first two appraisals.

Despite some variance in agreement for different domains and between different appraisers, the testing results suggest that AMSTAR-PF has clear utility for appraising the quality of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies.

To explore stakeholder experiences with implementing the living guideline (LG) development framework in oncology, and to identify barriers, facilitators and solutions to support its uptake and sustainability.

An exploratory sequential mixed methods design was used, beginning with qualitative semi-structured interviews with guideline development stakeholders, analysed thematically; and followed by a cross-sectional survey to quantitatively rate the importance of factors identified in phase one.

National and international oncology guideline development programmes using the LG development framework.

Stakeholders involved in LG development, including expert panel co-chairs, panel members, patient representatives, methodologists and administrative staff.

Nine stakeholders participated in qualitative interviews, and 45 completed the survey. Most participants were male (5/9:56% qualitative; 26/45:58% quantitative) and based in the US (7/9:78% and 29/45:64%, respectively). Overall, the results from both the qualitative and quantitative strand revealed seven themes (34 subthemes) as barriers and six themes (21 subthemes) as facilitators. Additionally, 9 themes were proposed as solutions. The most frequently reported barriers included evidence timeliness, interpretation and publication delays. Prominent facilitators included effective management, resource optimisation and panel engagement. Participants strongly endorsed investment in artificial intelligence enhanced tools to improve the speed and efficiency of evidence acquisition and review.

While the LG framework provides strong methodological guidance, its practical application presents notable challenges, particularly in resource demands and implementation logistics. Successful adoption requires adequate infrastructure, expertise and oversight. These findings highlight critical considerations for developers aiming to implement sustainable LG models in oncology and beyond.

While health services leaders rely heavily on information gathered via environmental scans (ESs) to guide strategic decision-making, formal guidance on how to conduct these scans is notably absent. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of agreement on essential components of a definition and a methodological framework for ESs. The goals were to (1) advance our working definition to a concept definition for ESs and (2) develop a methodological framework to guide health service researchers conducting ESs.

We used a real-time, modified Delphi survey in a virtual platform setting to seek perspectives on statements related to ESs from individuals who were recruited based on having verifiable experience designing or conducting ESs in health services delivery research. Surveylet, an online software, was used to facilitate asynchronous data collection and to determine the level of agreement on the statements with an a priori threshold of 75% set for agreement on each statement.

21 panellists provided opinions on 59 statements related to a proposed ES definition and on 69 statements specific to components of a methodological framework for ESs.

Panellists from four countries participated in the survey representing 2 to ≥11 years of experience with ESs and having completed 1 to ≥7 ESs. Agreement was achieved in 28 of the 59 statements related to the ES definition and for 51 of 69 statements related to a methodological framework.

The agreement on many elements deemed essential for a definition of ES support development of a proposed concept definition of ES in health service delivery research. As well, the agreement on components deemed necessary for a methodological framework will help in future development of such a framework to guide stakeholders in the planning and implementation of ESs. These results provide a starting point for a common understanding of ESs in the field of health services delivery research.

Acute lower limb ischaemia (ALI) is a life- and limb-threatening vascular emergency requiring urgent intervention. Despite advancements in therapeutic strategies, outcome reporting for ALI remains inconsistent, limiting evidence synthesis and guideline development. The CORE-ALI study aims to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) to standardise outcome reporting and ensure the inclusion of both clinical and patient-centred metrics.

CORE-ALI will use a structured, multi-phase methodology guided by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) guidelines. Phase 1 involves stakeholder engagement through semi-structured interviews with patients, clinicians and policymakers from diverse European healthcare systems. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis to generate a preliminary list of outcomes. In Phase 2, a multi-round Delphi survey (anticipated two to three rounds) will prioritise and refine outcomes through consensus building, with quantitative data analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistical methods. Phase 3 will culminate in a consensus meeting to finalise the COS. Multilingual accommodations will ensure inclusivity, and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-compliant platforms will secure data handling.

The study has received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Innsbruck (EK Nr: 1082/2025) on 20/05/2025. Additional local ethics approvals are required and will be obtained at all participating sites prior to the initiation of recruitment. The final Core outcome set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences and engagement with professional societies and patient organisations.

COMET initiative (Registration No. 3346).

To characterise the reporting practices of sequential multiple assignment randomised trials (SMARTs) in human health research.

Scoping review of protocol and primary analysis papers describing SMARTs published between January 2009 and February 2024.

SMARTs are innovative trial designs that allow for multiple stages of randomisation to treatment, with randomization potentially based on a patient’s response(s) to previous treatment(s). They are uniquely designed to develop sequential adaptive interventions (dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs)) to support personalized clinical decision-making over time. Previous reviews have identified inconsistencies in how the design, implementation and results of SMARTs have been reported in published studies. A comprehensive assessment of SMART reporting practices is lacking and necessary for developing standardised SMART-specific reporting guidelines.

We systematically searched multiple databases for SMART-related protocol and primary analysis papers published between January 2009 and February 2024. Title, abstract and full-text screenings were performed by pairs of reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data extraction included study characteristics, design elements and analytical approaches for embedded or tailored DTRs. Results were synthesised qualitatively and presented descriptively.

From 5486 screened studies, 103 (59 protocol papers, 16 primary analysis papers, 14 protocol papers with corresponding primary analysis papers) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted adults (62.7% protocols, 62.5% primary analyses, 42.9% protocol+primary analyses) and were primarily conducted in the USA. Behavioural and mental health constituted the most frequent therapeutic domain. While intervention descriptions and re-randomisation criteria were consistently reported, operational characteristics such as blinding (protocols: 64.4%, primary analyses: 62.5%, protocols+primary analyses: 71.4%) and randomisation details (protocols: 55.9%, primary analyses: 37.5%, protocols+primary analyses: 50.0%) were inconsistently documented. Only 46.7% of primary analyses evaluated embedded DTRs, and none explored deeply tailored DTRs.

Despite the increased adoption of SMART designs, substantial reporting variability persists. Most primary analyses underuse the capability of SMARTs to generate data for developing DTRs. SMART-specific standardised reporting guidelines can help accelerate the scientific and clinical impact of SMARTs.

This project aimed to assess the applicability of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) tool to French academic studies and identify the carbon hotspots, with a view to discussing ways of mitigating their environmental impact.

Retrospective analysis.

A completed single-centre phase I haematology trial TOCILAM (NCT04547062) and a completed multicentre phase III in intensive care REMICRUSH (NCT03960801).

TOCILAM had a total number of 12 participants and REMICRUSH had a total number of 1150 participants.

Total carbon emissions from each trial and the hotspots of those emissions.

The carbon footprint of the TOCILAM and REMICRUSH studies was estimated at 3.2 and 5.8 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, respectively. For these two studies, the hotspots were the Meetings and travel item followed by the clinical trial unit emissions.

The NIHR tool is easily applicable to the context of French academic clinical studies. The total estimated carbon footprint of the two clinical trials was generally lower than what has been reported in the literature for academic studies. However, areas for improvement have been identified.

Effect size and event rate estimation is necessary for sample size calculation in randomised clinical trials. Overestimation of the effect size and event rate can lead to inadequately powered studies and increased probability of false negative results. This is common in trials involving critically ill patients. However, such overestimation has not been systematically evaluated in trials involving neurocritical care. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of published randomised clinical trials involving critically ill neurological patients, to determine the accuracy of effect size and event rate estimation.

We will review randomised clinical trials involving adult critically ill neurological patients that were published from 2015 onwards in selected clinically useful and high-impact journals. We will include randomised clinical trials reporting a binary or time to event outcome, using two study groups, and a superiority design testing the efficacy of diagnostic, monitoring, therapeutic or process interventions. All eligible studies must report an estimated event rate in the control group and estimated effect size. All relevant studies will be identified through database searches. All study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will use a random-effects model for pooling data. This review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Accuracy of effect size and event rate estimation will be evaluated by comparing the estimated and observed values. The association between the accuracy of the individual randomised clinical trial effect size and event rate estimation and rejection of the null hypothesis will be evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Multivariable linear regression analysis will be used to explore the factors associated with accuracy of effect size and event rate estimation. In addition, we will perform subgroup analysis by impact factor of the published journals, sample size of the studies and risk of bias.

As this systematic review will use data from previously published studies, it does not require ethics approval. Findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at specialty-based conferences. The study will be included in the higher degree research thesis of the primary author.

CRD420251106394.

Drug poisoning, caused predominantly by fentanyl in the unregulated drug supply, is the leading cause of death among persons 10–59 years in British Columbia (BC), Canada. In March 2020, in response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the province of BC released the Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) as a clinical tool for physicians and nurse practitioners, allowing prescribers to provide selective withdrawal management medications, such as hydromorphone, dextroamphetamine, diazepam and others, as a legal and regulated supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to individuals who were at-risk of COVID-19 and overdose. In July 2021, the government of BC released the prescribed safer supply (PSS) policy, extending the scope beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and initial medications offered under the RMG. Recent studies have shown clear benefits among people with a diagnosed opioid use disorder who were prescribed PSS, in reducing mortality, as well as improving retention on opioid agonist treatment for those who were coprescribed PSS medications. The objective of the analysis detailed in this protocol is to use a cross-model comparison approach, comparing two independently developed models which are currently used in public health institutions in BC, to estimate the impact of this policy on opioid overdose-related mortality, while also considering the potential negative impacts of PSS medication diversion to those who are opioid naïve. This project will add to the limited evidence-base on the population-level impact of pharmaceutical alternatives interventions to date.

We have identified two appropriate mathematical models to evaluate the impact of PSS on the number of opioid overdose-related deaths within BC from the inception of the programme (March 2020) until December 2022. We will use recently established guidelines on conducting a cross-model comparison to identify structural and parameter differences between the models and perform adaptation steps to generate the counterfactual scenarios. These will include creating additional health states for the population representing individuals receiving PSS, and parameterising the overdose risk, mortality and retention in the new compartments from a comprehensive population-level data set. Harmonisation will be conducted to ensure that both models evaluate the same scenarios with the same data. Further sensitivity analyses will be conducted to consider alternative counterfactual scenarios and changes to the population following the implementation of the intervention.

This study is exempt from research ethics board review, as outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement, because it relies on data that is available in the public domain and there is no possibility of identifying individual persons. Results of the model validation analysis will be distributed through peer-reviewed journals and knowledge translation materials posted on the websites of the BC Centre for Disease Control and Centre for Advancing Health Outcomes.

https://osf.io/kju2p/overview.

The importance of conducting qualitative research alongside clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions is well established. There are various ways in which these two methodologies can be combined in mixed-methods research, including integrating data and/or results from the qualitative and quantitative strands during analysis, using techniques such as joint displays. The potential benefits of integration during data analysis include understanding intervention mechanisms, reasons for variation in outcomes, ways of tailoring interventions to individuals and barriers and facilitators to implementation. However, integration during data analysis may rarely be undertaken in practice, and the extent to which integration can provide valuable insights appears to be underappreciated in the field.

In this review, we aim to summarise current methods of integrating qualitative and quantitative raw data and/or results during analysis in clinical trials of complex healthcare interventions, and the yield of these different methods. Our specific research questions focus on (1) which integration techniques are used; (2) whether the results meet the study authors’ aims and/or answer their research questions; (3) the insights obtained and/or meta-inferences generated from these techniques (classified as either global or specific, and as relational, predictive, causal, comparative or elaborative); (4) any relationship between these insights and/or meta-inferences and the integration technique used and (5) the quality of these studies.

We will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science, and manually search reference lists. We will include studies if they integrate, during data analysis, raw data and/or results from a clinical (randomised, non-randomised or single-arm) trial and an embedded or subsequent associated qualitative study of a complex, non-pharmaceutical healthcare intervention (where the effects on a health outcome were measured). Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts and perform data extraction. We will develop a descriptive account of the data, including mapping the key characteristics of included studies and narratively reporting our findings in relation to each of our research questions. We will explore how integration was undertaken, what insights were obtained and/or meta-inferences generated, and whether and how these relate to the type of integration technique used.

This study does not require ethical approval. We intend to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and to present our findings at national and/or international conferences.

This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework on 22 October 2025 (ref osf.io/yxtb9).

Despite the high prevalence of insomnia, anxiety and depression in patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC), their clinical impact is often overlooked. To address this gap, our study systematically investigated whether these three comorbidities impact BPS/IC severity.

This cross-sectional study included 237 patients with BPS/IC recruited via convenience sampling from Shapingba Hospital affiliated to Chongqing University (Shapingba District People’s Hospital of Chongqing) and Chongqing Liangjiang Minsheng Hospital in Chongqing, China, between 24 August 2023 and 21 November 2023.

Apart from demographic characteristics, BPS severity was assessed using the O’Leary-Sant interstitial cystitis questionnaire, insomnia was assessed using the Athens Insomnia Scale and anxiety and depression were assessed using Zung’s Self-rating Anxiety Scale and Zung’s Self-rating Depression Scale, respectively. The structural equation model (SEM) was used to analyse the role of insomnia, anxiety and depression on the severity of BPS/IC.

The proportion of severe disease, insomnia, anxiety and depression in participants was 49.37%, 70.89%, 43.88% and 47.26%, respectively. The analysis of SEM indicated that insomnia (β=0.294, pβ=0.364, pβ=0.042, p=0.674). According to the mediating analysis, the association between insomnia and the disease was attributable to both direct effects of insomnia (55.5%) and indirect effects involving anxiety conditions (44.5%).

Our findings indicate that insomnia is associated with BPS/IC severity both directly and indirectly through anxiety in patients with BPS/IC. These results further support the use of psychological and sleep interventions for BPS/IC.

This study evaluates how participants experienced and assessed a three-round Delphi study on the terminology of developmental language disorders in childhood. It compares participants who completed all rounds (completers) with those who withdrew early (dropouts) and aims to derive methodological quality criteria for future Delphi studies.

The evaluation is based on a Delphi study conducted in 2021/2022 across five German-speaking countries. After the final round, n=179 experts (40% response rate) completed a standardised survey assessing their expertise, motivation, reasons for discontinuation, time commitment and perceptions of questionnaire and feedback design. Responses from completers (n=156) and dropouts (n=23) were analysed descriptively.

Most participants had no prior experience with Delphi methods but rated the study positively and considered the topic highly relevant. Completers reported their subjective time commitment to be lower and rated the handling of the questionnaire more positively than dropouts. Feedback was used by nearly half of all experts and was more actively considered by completers. Lack of time was the most common reason for discontinuation.

The findings confirm the feasibility and acceptance of the Delphi method in interdisciplinary health research. In addition to established methodological principles, topic relevance, clear communication and time commitment emerged as key areas for expert motivation and engagement.

To explore the perspectives of librarians and information specialists (LIS) on their experience and impact as peer reviewers of systematic reviews (SRs), and on facilitators and barriers to LIS methodological peer review.

Survey and focus groups.

We surveyed LIS who completed a peer review of an SR in a randomised controlled trial conducted in BMJ, BMJ Open and BMJ Medicine from 3 January 2023 to 2 January 2024. The questionnaire sought to understand their experience, what aspects of manuscripts they focused on, perceived impact on editorial decision-making and authors’ revisions and willingness to peer review again. To better understand factors that might impact decisions to review again, we contacted survey respondents to participate in a focus group concentrating on facilitators and barriers to peer reviewing SRs.

88 LIS were eligible for participation. From the survey respondents, 27 LIS who had volunteered were randomly selected and invited to participate in a follow-up focus group.

Of the 88 LIS invited to participate in the survey, 70 (80%) responded. Most respondents had six or more years of experience as an LIS (67/70; 96%) and advising researchers on doing SRs (55/70; 79%) and had peer reviewed for a journal prior to the study (57/70; 81%). Most focused on the search and SR methods when reviewing but also commented on aspects such as research question formulation, plagiarism, study results and conclusions. Two-thirds (44/66; 67%) believed they impacted editors’ decision-making and 59% (39/66) believed they impacted the authors’ revisions. Only three factors were considered extremely or very likely to impact their decision to review again: their schedule and/or lack of time, review turnaround time and their sense of professional duty. 17 LIS (63.0%) participated in a focus group. Time was the primary barrier identified in the focus groups, followed by a sense of intimidation. LIS reported being motivated by feeling valued by editors, the enjoyment of peer reviewing, the desire to improve SR quality and peer review as a learning experience. Several expressed surprise and delight at being asked to peer review for the journals.

LIS may be an underused peer reviewing resource with methodological experience that can help editors make decisions and improve the quality of SRs. Efforts to engage LIS as peer reviewers by journal editors are likely to be well-received when LIS expertise is clearly valued, sought and heeded. We encourage both journal editors and LIS to creatively advance efforts to promote LIS as methodological peer reviewers.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QVTY4.

Non-inferiority (NI) trial designs, which assess whether an experimental intervention is no worse than the standard of care, have become increasingly prevalent in recent years. Current thinking suggests that the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is considered anti-conservative in the presence of protocol violations when compared with the per-protocol (PP) analysis.

We aim to conduct a methodological review of NI trials to compare the results from ITT and PP analysis in NI trials. A comprehensive electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. We will include 390 NI trials published prior to 31 December 2024. The primary outcomes are the treatment effect estimates from ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes are the CI widths and the bounds of the CIs from the ITT and PP analyses. Analysis will calculate the relative difference in the point estimates, CI widths and CI bounds between the two approaches. Linear models will be used to investigate the relationship between the outcomes and the proportion of patients excluded from the PP analysis.

This is a methodological review that has been registered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD420251125360). Research ethics is not required as the project is a methodological review of previously published trials. Study findings will be shared via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences.

Increased popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials (SW-CRT) highlights the importance of understanding and appropriate mitigation of sources of bias within this trial design. While current evidence suggests that ‘conventional’ cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are at a higher risk of recruitment bias than individually randomised trials, this review aims to estimate the risk of recruitment bias in SW-CRTs.

Systematic review with search conducted on four databases. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using subdomain 1a (randomisation process) and 1b (timing of identification or recruitment of participants) of the Cochrane RoB tool 2.0 (extension for cluster RCTs).

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library were searched on 9 February 2024.

SW-CRTs published in 2023 were included.

Two independent reviewers screened and extracted all eligible papers. RoB was assessed with the Cochrane RoB tool.

Overall, 808 papers were screened, and 64 studies were included in the review. Most studies were deemed to have a high RoB (n=35, 55%), some concerns were noticed in 20 studies (31%), and 9 (14%) were considered to have a low RoB. The description of the randomisation process in the included papers was sometimes poorly reported (in 15 studies (23%) problems with the randomisation process were identified), and 21 studies (33%) had issues with sampling strategy (recruiting participants after randomisation by unmasked staff).

The review revealed that SW-CRTs are prone to recruitment bias, but the risks are comparable to cluster RCTs. When SW-CRTs are unable to recruit prior to randomisation, mitigation strategies could be implemented to reduce bias. A separate tool for RoB assessment in SW-CRTs is required to address the complexities of this trial design.