Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15–39 years) is a rising global epidemic. Yet, AYAs remain an understudied population, and little is known about what research topics should be prioritised according to those with lived experience. The AYA Cancer Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established to identify the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada according to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

This project followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology that included two national cross-sectional surveys and a final priority setting workshop following an adapted nominal group technique.

A national sample was recruited to participate from across Canada.

Participants were patients, caregivers, and clinicians with lived personal and/or professional experience of AYA cancer in Canada.

In the first survey, open-ended responses were collected from participants about questions they would like answered by research. Responses were collated into overarching summary questions and a literature search was undertaken to verify if questions were true uncertainties and not fully answered by existing evidence. Unanswered questions were ranked by participants in a second survey. The top-ranked questions were prioritised through consensus at the final priority setting workshop. The final outcome was the top 10 priorities for AYA cancer research in Canada.

In the initial survey, 1916 potential research questions were submitted by 275 patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Following data processing, summary question formation, and the evidence check, 58 questions were put forward for interim prioritisation in a second survey (n=285 patients, caregivers, and clinicians). The top 20 questions from the interim prioritisation were ranked at the final priority setting workshop attended by a diverse group of 23 patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada. The resulting top 10 priorities reflect topics across the cancer continuum including: diagnostic delays, screening and early detection, novel therapies, psychosocial impacts, end-of-life concerns, and survivorship issues.

This patient-directed research agenda will guide researchers, funding agencies, and policymakers to ensure that future research is aligned with what matters most to the AYA cancer community.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of mortality in Nepal. Risk perception is crucial for the prevention of CVD-related behaviours. This study assessed CVD risk perceptions and the stages of preventive behaviours among adults in Pokhara Metropolitan, Nepal by integrating two theoretical models—the Health Belief Model and the Transtheoretical Model.

This study used a cross-sectional design with data collected through a survey using a semistructured questionnaire.

This study was conducted from July 2024 to August 2024; among community people aged ≥20 residing in 11 wards of Pokhara Metropolitan.

A total of 384 community people residing in Pokhara Metropolitan, Nepal.

The primary outcome measure was stage of preventive behaviours of CVDs using Fuster BEWAT components (blood pressure, exercise, weight, diet and tobacco), while explanatory variables were sociodemographic characteristics and CVD Health Beliefs.

A total of 384 adults participated (response rate=95%). The mean age was 42.3 years (SD±14.5), with equal representation of males and females. More than half of the participants (55.5%) perceived low susceptibility to CVDs, 40.4% perceived high severity, 78.4% perceived high benefits and 49.5% perceived moderate barriers. Most respondents were in the precontemplation stage for blood pressure control (43%) and weight management (30.5%), whereas maintenance was most common for physical activity (41.1%), healthy diet (51.3%) and smoking abstinence (80.1%).

Ordinal logistic regression revealed that low perceived benefits significantly hindered behavioural progression (p=0.001–0.012), where low perceived barriers significantly facilitated advancement across all behaviours (p

Perceived benefits and barriers were key predictors of progression in CVD prevention behaviours. While many adults maintained healthy diets, physical activity and smoking abstinence, most were in the early stage for blood pressure and weight control strategies. Strengthening perceived benefits and reducing barriers can enhance the adoption of healthy behaviours in Nepal.

An abnormal composition of gut bacteria along with alterations in microbial metabolites and reduced gut barrier integrity has been associated with the pathogenesis of chronic autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). The aim of the systematic review, for which this protocol is presented, is to evaluate the clinical benefits and potential harms of therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function in AIRDs to inform clinical practice and future research.

This protocol used the reporting guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. We will search Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library (Central) for reports of randomised controlled trials of patients diagnosed with an AIRD. Eligible interventions are therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function including probiotics, synbiotics, faecal microbiota transplantation, live biotherapeutic products and antibiotics with the intent to modify disease activity in AIRDs. The primary outcome of the evidence synthesis will be based on the primary endpoint of each trial. Secondary efficacy outcomes will be evaluated and selected from the existing core domain sets of the individual diseases and include the following domains: disease control, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, pain and inflammation. Harms will include the total number of withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse events, number of patients with serious adverse events, disease flares and deaths. A meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome domain separately. Depending on the type of outcome, the quantitative synthesis will encompass both ORs and standardised mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs.

No ethics approval will be needed for this systematic review. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to disseminate the study results through a peer-reviewed publication.

CRD42025644244.

Many patients receive oral anticoagulation for reduced stroke risk in atrial fibrillation or as treatment or prevention of venous thromboembolism. Oral factor Xa inhibitors (oral FXaI, eg, apixaban, edoxaban or rivaroxaban) are commonly prescribed for this indication. Dabigatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, is similarly approved. In vitro and animal model evidence suggests that dabigatran also has direct effects on Staphylococcus aureus virulence and infection. Observational data have shown that dabigatran users are less likely to develop S. aureus bacteremia (SAB), and a small randomised controlled trial showed that dabigatran has anti-S. aureus effects when compared with low molecular weight heparins during bloodstream infection. We seek to answer whether dabigatran is superior to the oral FXaIs in achieving better SAB outcomes among patients who independently require oral anticoagulation. We report the intervention-specific protocol, embedded in an adaptive platform trial.

The S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial [NCT05137119] is a pragmatic, randomised, multicentre adaptive platform trial that compares different SAB therapies for 90-day mortality rates. For this intervention (‘Dabi-SNAP’), patients receiving therapy with an oral FXaI will be randomised to continue as usual or to change to dabigatran as of the next scheduled dose. All subjects will receive standard of care antibiotics and/or antibiotics allocated through other active domains in the platform. As the choice of anticoagulant may not demonstrate large differences in mortality, a ranked composite of death and adverse outcomes (Desirability of Outcome Ranking, or DOOR) was chosen as the primary outcome.

The study is conditionally approved by the research ethics board of the McGill University Health Centre: identifier 2025-10900. Trial results will be published open access in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a global infectious disease conference. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT06650501.

NCT0665050.

Poor medication adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes, an increase in hospitalisations and increased mortality. This is a multicentre randomised study that evaluates the effectiveness of using a manual pill organiser (MPO) and a custom-developed pill reminder app (PRA) on medication adherence, morbidity, as well as health economic outcomes among Indian elderly individuals taking multiple medications.

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of MPO and PRA alone or in combination in improving medication adherence among elderly individuals on multiple medications. The secondary objectives include the impact of interventions on the morbidity profile and health-related quality of life. The study also plans to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of improving medication adherence.

This is a community-based, open-label, factorial-design randomised controlled trial to be conducted across rural and urban populations at two geographically distinct sites in India. The study will enrol 752 elderly individuals aged 60–80 years, receiving three or more medications for at least 6 months and having access to smartphones. The participants will be randomised to receive one of the following interventions for 12 months: control group, PRA, MPO and MPO+PRA. All study groups would receive patient education about the importance of medication adherence. The study outcomes include the proportion of improvement in medication adherence (using Medication Adherence Rating System-5, 7-day point prevalence of medication non-adherence and pill count); adverse clinical outcomes; healthcare utilisation; health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness and cost-utility outcomes.

The study protocol has been approved by institutional ethics committees at all three institutes. The study results for primary and secondary outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

CTRI/2024/01/061975 (Registered on: 29 January 2024).

Since 2018, WHO has endorsed the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex isolates to detect drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). This endorsement was based on the assumption that a faster and more detailed description of the resistance profile would improve treatment prescription for DR-TB by healthcare providers, and hence the treatment outcomes of patients. Nonetheless, this assumption has not been tested in routine clinical practice and different scenarios. In Brazil, WGS is not routinely used for the diagnosis of DR-TB, having been carried out in only a few centres for research purposes. With this trial, we will evaluate whether a WGS-based drug-resistance report improves treatment adequacy in patients with pulmonary DR-TB, compared with the current standard-of-care diagnostic methods used in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

We will conduct a non-randomised controlled clinical trial with two arms to compare the intervention group (ie, individuals receiving a WGS-based report) with a historical control group (i.e., individuals who received resistance diagnostics based on the standard of care of conventional genotyping and phenotyping techniques). The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients whose treatment scheme was adequate based on complete resistance profile determined by WGS and/or phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing (pDST). Other secondary outcomes will also be considered. The target sample size is 88 eligible patients per group. The intervention group will be prospectively recruited over 18 months and the control group will be composed of patients diagnosed with pulmonary DR-TB up to 2 years before the start of the trial. To ensure comparability, isolates from the control group will undergo WGS retrospectively, and pDST will be performed retrospectively in both groups. This clinical trial will take place in six medical centres for the treatment of DR-TB in the state of São Paulo. This study is intended to support the implementation of the WGS in the routine diagnosis of DR-TB in the state of São Paulo.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Committee of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil (CAAE: 79497924.1.1001.5467). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to policymakers and stakeholders.

U1111-1308-4669.

The use of digitally enabled technology is considered a promising platform to prevent morbidity and enhance youth mental health as youth are growing up in the digital world and accessing the Internet at increasingly younger age. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise the models, frameworks and strategies that have been used to study the implementation of digital mental health interventions targeted at youth aged 15–34 years.

We will conduct a scoping review following the Arksey-O’Malley five-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Implementation methods will be operationalised according to pre-established aims: (1) process models that describe or guide the implementation process; (2) evaluation frameworks evaluating or measuring the success of implementation; and (3) implementation strategies used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Primary research studies in all languages will be identified in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ERIC, Education Research Complete, MEDLINE and APA PsycINFO on 6 January 2025. Two reviewers will calibrate screening criteria and the data charting form and will independently screen records and abstract data. We will use the Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to classify digital interventions based on functions, and a pre-established working taxonomy to synthesise conceptually distinct implementation outcomes. Convergent integrated data synthesis will be performed.

Ethical approval is not applicable as this scoping review will be conducted only on data presented in the published literature. Findings will be published and directly infused into our multidisciplinary team of academic researchers, youth partners, health professionals and knowledge users (healthcare and non-governmental organisation decision makers) to co-design and pilot test a digital psychoeducational health intervention to engage, educate and empower youth to be informed stewards of their mental health.

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.

Structured Early detection of Asymptomatic Liver fibrosis and cirrhosis (SEAL) is a population-based screening programme using non-invasive tests for the early detection of liver fibrosis. This study evaluates the cost implications if the SEAL programme were to be implemented in routine care in Germany.

This study models cost differences with and without the SEAL screening programme. We regress costs of care on patient characteristics (age, comorbidities, sex, liver diseases, liver cancer and liver fibrosis and cirrhosis (LCI) stage) using statutory health insurance (SHI) data from routine care patients with LCI (n=4177). Based on these results, we predict per-patient costs for the patients newly diagnosed with LCI by SEAL (n=45). Costs with and without screening are estimated using patient age and LCI stage distributions from either SEAL or routine care.

SEAL was conducted in two German states. Initial screening was performed by patients’ primary care physicians.

Individuals insured by SHI without a prior diagnosis of LCI, eligible for Check-up 35, a general health check-up programme primarily targeting adults aged 35 and older, conducted by primary care physicians.

Screening via aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index in primary care, for further evaluation serological diagnostics and ultrasound examinations in secondary care and specific assessment for definite diagnosis including transient elastography and liver biopsy for selected cases in tertiary care.

Primary outcome measures: expected 5-year cost changes for SEAL patients diagnosed with fibrosis or cirrhosis compared to costs without a screening programme. Secondary outcome measures: case mix of leading chronic liver disease and LCI stages among patients diagnosed with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis in SEAL versus routine care without screening.

Screening leads to fewer decompensated cases at initial diagnosis (4.6% in SEAL vs 22.8% in routine care) and thus savings in the costs of care within the first years of diagnosis: total expected costs per case were 2175 lower (bias-corrected bootstrap CIs (BCI): 527 to 3734), and LCI-associated costs were reduced by 1218 (BCI: 296 to 2164). Comparing the savings to the additional costs of diagnosis (range: 1575–1726 per detected LCI case) reveals that average changes in costs with screening range from moderate savings to moderate extra costs.

SEAL liver screening identifies patients in less advanced stages of LCI. If only costs were considered that are directly attributable to LCI, savings within 5 years are unlikely to fully outweigh the costs of screening. However, since this approach might miss additional LCI-related costs, SEAL appears to be cost-neutral compared with routine care when considering total healthcare costs.

The SEAL registration number is DRKS00013460. This study relates to its results.

If clinical trials measure and report the outcomes included in core outcome sets (COS) for a given condition/disease as a minimum, this has the potential to improve comparability between trials and prevent research waste. Until now, the uptake of the Bronchiectasis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) COS has not been assessed.

This study assessed the uptake of Bronchiectasis and HS COS using a review of trial registries, with entries taken from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. This uptake assessment provides valuable information to inform COS refinement and uncover areas lacking uptake to inform further dissemination requirements.

For each trial, the outcomes included in the trial registry entry were extracted and compared with those included in the corresponding Bronchiectasis or HS COS. The Bronchiectasis COS consists of 18 outcomes, and the HS COS, 6.

Of the trials registered after both COS were developed in 2018, 63% (12/19) of HS trials planned to measure the full COS, whereas for Bronchiectasis, 0% (0/24) of trials planned to measure the full COS. However, of the five priority outcomes to be measured for Bronchiectasis, 4% (1/24) of trials planned to measure all five outcomes.

Both COS publications’ focus was to reach consensus on what outcomes should be measured. Despite both publications referring to the Core outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, which discusses the importance of COS dissemination, implementation plans were not included in either publication.

The results suggest that uptake of the HS COS is relatively good, despite yearly fluctuations, whereas for Bronchiectasis, COS uptake is limited. Further research into standardised measurement tools for HS is expected to increase uptake. The focus for Bronchiectasis, however, will be to refine the COS for feasible application in clinical trials. Future COS development publications should use all resources from the COMET initiative to ensure feasible dissemination of the COS.

An increasing number of teenagers and young adults (TYA) with chronic conditions and complex needs are transitioning from paediatric to adult services, including admission to intensive care units (ICUs). As these services are often ill-equipped to care for TYA, there is a risk of compromised care. Despite recent guidelines from the UK Paediatric Critical Care and Intensive Care Societies highlighting the importance and urgency of improving ICU transition, current recommendations are not evidence-based and established pathways for ICU transition remain limited.

This mixed-methods research study aims to generate evidence to underpin national policy on transition from paediatric to adult ICUs that will improve clinical care and patient experience. To do this, we will: (1) link and analyse UK national data (years 2017–2024) on paediatric and adult ICU admissions, hospital inpatient, outpatient and emergency care visits and survival status, to determine the clinical characteristics and healthcare resource utilisation from teenage years to early adulthood of people admitted to an ICU as a young person (admission aged 14 and 15), and how these relate to ICU admissions after age 16; (2) conduct semistructured interviews, online forums and surveys with TYA patients, carers and health professionals to understand their experience of transition in ICU services; and (3) synthesise these strands of evidence and use a structured process of stakeholder engagement to propose potential targeted improvements as appropriate.

This study was approved by the East of England - Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee on 1 August 2024 (research ethics committee number 24/EE/0108), and the Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) on 7 October 2024 (CAG number 24/CAG/0068). Study results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and accessible lay texts and graphic summaries for the use of charities and patients including those with learning disabilities and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Acknowledging equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research is not only a moral imperative but also an important step in avoiding bias and ensuring generalisability of results. This protocol describes the development of STAndards for ReporTing EDI (START-EDI) in research, which will provide a set of minimum standards to help researchers improve their consistency, completeness and transparency in EDI reporting. We anticipate that these guidelines will benefit authors, reviewers, editors, funding organisations, healthcare providers, patients and the public.

To create START-EDI reporting guidelines, the following five stages are proposed: (i) establish a diverse, multidisciplinary Steering Committee that will lead and coordinate guideline development; (ii) a systematic review to identify the essential principles and methodological approaches for EDI to generate preliminary checklist items; (iii) conduct an international Delphi process to reach a consensus on the checklist items; (iv) finalise the reporting guidelines and create a separate explanation and elaboration document; and (v) broad dissemination and implementation of START-EDI guidelines. We will work with patient and public involvement representatives and under-served groups in research throughout the project stages.

The study has received ethical approval from the Imperial College London Research Ethics Committee (study ID: 7592283). The reporting guidelines will be published in open access peer-reviewed publications and presented in international conferences, and disseminated through community networks and forums.

The project is pre-registered within the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/8udbq/) and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network.

Post-COVID-19 conditions (PCC) may include pulmonary sequelae, fatigue and other symptoms, but its mechanisms are not fully elucidated.

This study investigated the correlation between fatigue and the presence of pulmonary abnormalities in PCC patients with respiratory involvement 6–12 months after hospitalisation.

Cross-sectional study.

A tertiary hospital in Brazil.

315 patients, aged ≥18 years, were considered eligible based on SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-PCR.

Pulmonary function tests (PFT), cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET), chest CT and hand grip were performed. The following scales were applied: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale, Euroqol 5 Dimensions quality of life (EQ-5D) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Participants were divided between the fatigue group (FACIT-F≤30) and the non-fatigue group (FACIT-F>30). For the statistical analysis, the primary outcome was the difference in the diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) between groups. Considered secondary outcomes were differences in PFT, CPET, chest CT, hand grip, EQ-5D and HADS.

The fatigue group had 81 patients (25.7%) against 234 (74.3%). PFT and CPET showed no significant difference in DLCO and oxygen consumption peak values between groups. The fatigue group had a lower workload (mean 55.3±21.3 watts vs 66.5±23.2 watts, p=0.003), higher breathing reserve (median 41.9% (33.8–52.5) vs 37.7% (28.9–47.1), p=0.028) and lower prevalence of ground glass opacity (60.8% vs 77.7%, p=0.003) and reticulation (36.7% vs 54.9%, p=0.005) in chest CT. The fatigue group had higher anxiety (57% vs 24%, p

Fatigue in patients with PCC 6–12 months after hospitalisation is relatively common and had weak correlation with pulmonary disorders. Our results suggested fatigue could be strongly related with peripheral disorders such as reduced musculoskeletal strength or psychosocial limitations.

Guidelines for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) dictate the initiation of conservative treatment (physical therapy, analgesics and intra-articular injections with corticosteroids) as a first line defence. When conservative treatment fails, the golden standard is invasive joint replacement surgery, but for a substantial group of patients who do not respond to the current conservative treatment, this is not (yet) indicated. The RADIOPHENOL study investigates if denervation of knee sensory (genicular) nerves can serve the gap between conservative and invasive treatment for younger patients and for patients who cannot undergo joint replacement surgery due to comorbid health conditions.

The RADIOPHENOL study is a multicentre unblinded randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms (1:1:1). In total, 192 patients with knee OA Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2–4 but not eligible for joint replacement according to the orthopaedic surgeon due to young age, old age and/or comorbidity or technical reasons are eligible and will be randomised to three groups of 64 patients. Group A: traditional radiofrequency ablation, group B: chemical neurolysis with phenol, group C: conservative medical management. Primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, knee pain by numeric rating scale, physical functionality, health-related quality of life, mental health, change in medication use, predictive value of a diagnostic block, procedure time, patient discomfort score during the intervention and adverse events.

The protocol (V.2.0, 15 May 2023), was approved by the Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC (NL83410.018.22 – METC2022.0890) on 31 July 2023. We aim to publish our results in international peer-reviewed journals.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06094660, including the WHO Trial Registration data set items. Registered on 20 October 2023, first patient enrolled on 27 November 2023.