Conectar
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.
Secondary and tertiary renal hyperparathyroidism (RHPT) are common sequelae of chronic kidney disease and are associated with worse patient mortality and quality of life. Clinical guidelines remain lacking with regard to recommendations for using intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) during surgery for RHPT. A prospective randomised study will help evaluate the role of IOPTH in guiding surgery for secondary and tertiary RHPT.
Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring to guide surgery in renal hyperparathyroidism is a pragmatic, multicentre, five-arm, parallel-group, patient-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded prospective pilot trial used to evaluate the feasibility of performing a definitive trial. Eligible participants include adult patients diagnosed with secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism who are candidates for subtotal or total parathyroidectomy. Consenting patients will be randomly assigned, through central allocation, in a 1:1:1:1:1 fashion to undergo surgery with IOPTH monitoring (four experimental arms: postexcision IOPTH samples taken at 10, 15, 20 or 25 min) or to undergo surgery without IOPTH monitoring (control arm). The primary feasibility objective is to estimate the percentage of eligible patients that are randomised: ≥70% proceed; 50–69% modify protocol before proceeding;
Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Pilot trial results will be shared widely through local, national and international academic and clinical networks and will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.
NCT06542315, registered on 6 August 2024.
To compare the effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone (bup/nal) and methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) in the treatment of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) during the fentanyl era.
Secondary analysis of prospective cohort study data.
Data for the study were collected from 54 clinical sites across Ontario, Canada, between May 2018 and January 2023.
To be included in the present study, participants had to be at least 16 years of age, have provided written informed consent and be receiving either MMT or bup/nal therapy for OUD. This study includes data from 2601 participants, of whom 2068 were receiving MMT and 533 were receiving bup/nal for OUD. The mean age of participants was 39.4 years (SD: 10.9), and 45% were female.
MMT or bup/nal treatment for OUD.
We employed a propensity score matched analysis to compare treatment outcomes among patients receiving MMT compared with bup/nal. We used ongoing illicit opioid use as an indicator of treatment outcome. We considered participants with >50% of urine drug screens in the past 12 months positive for non-prescribed opioids to be ‘non-responders’. We conducted subgroup analyses to identify whether treatment type was associated with ongoing non-prescribed opioid use among patients with and without a history of intravenous drug use (IVDU), and whether treatment type was associated with retention in treatment.
Eight per cent of patients on bup/nal were considered non-responders, compared with 11.9% of patients on MMT. We did not find a statistically significant association between treatment type and treatment response. However, we did find that patients on MMT were more likely to stay in treatment for 12 months (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.22, p
Among a cohort of patients with OUD receiving treatment during the fentanyl era, we find that there is no statistically significant difference in ongoing non-prescribed opioid use between patients receiving MMT compared with bup/nal. Future studies should aim to further compare treatment effectiveness using patient-centred outcomes and pragmatic trial designs.
Mental health problems are important causes of disability and economic costs worldwide. Randomised clinical trials examining the treatment of mental health disorders measure heterogeneous outcomes, causing difficulties in data synthesis, interpretation and translation into clinical practice. The aim of the Patient Important Outcomes in Psychiatry (PIO-Psych) Initiative is to develop an overarching, transdiagnostic research-based and consensus-based core outcome set for adult mental health disorders.
The development of the PIO-Psych transdiagnostic core outcome set will include three phases: (1) a systematic scoping review of the literature to develop the initial list of outcomes for the Delphi study; (2) a Delphi study in three rounds including people with lived experience of mental health disorders and their relatives, clinicians, researchers and others (administrators, mental healthcare policymakers, philosophers); (3) a hybrid consensus meeting to agree on the final overarching, transdiagnostic core outcome set and corresponding time points of assessment of each outcome.
Ethical approval is not applicable to this study according to the Research Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark, as it is not an interventional study. All data will be reported anonymously, and it will not be possible to identify study participants. Results will be disseminated via stakeholder and research networks and peer-reviewed publications.
The PIO-Psych Initiative was pre-registered with COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) on 17 May 2024 (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3125).
by Alex Thabane, Sarah Saleh, Sushmitha Pallapothu, Tyler McKechnie, Phillip Staibano, Jason W. Busse, Goran Calic, Ranil Sonnadara, Sameer Parpia, Mohit Bhandari
BackgroundCreativity fuels societal progress and innovation, particularly in the field of medicine. The scientific study of creativity in medicine is critical to understanding how creativity contributes to medical practice, processes, and outcomes. An appraisal of the current scientific literature on the topic, and its gaps, will expand our understanding of how creativity and medicine interact, and guide future research.
ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the quantity, trends, distribution, and methodological features of the peer-reviewed on creativity in medicine.
MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases for peer-reviewed primary research publications on creativity in medicine. Screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate by pairs of reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We performed descriptive analyses, graphically displaying the data using charts and maps where appropriate.
ResultsEighty-one studies were eligible for review, enrolling a total of 18,221 physicians, nurses and midwifes across all studies. Most research on creativity in medicine was published in the last decade, predominately in the field of nursing (75%). Researchers from Taiwan (22%) and the United States (21%) produced the most eligible publications, and the majority research was cross-sectional in nature (54%). There was substantial variability in the definitions of creativity adopted, and most studies failed to specify a definition of creativity. Forty-five different measurement tools were used to assess creativity, the most popular being divergent thinking tests such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (24%) and Guilford Creativity Tests (16%).
ConclusionsPeer-reviewed scientific research on creativity in medicine, mostly conducted in the nursing profession, is sparse and performed on variable methodological grounds. Further scientific research on the topic, as well as the development of medicine-specific definitions and measurement tools, is required to uncover the utility of creativity in the medical domain.
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
FreshRSS 