Explore the vast range of titles available.

This report presents the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SW-CRT). The SW-CRT involves randomisation of clusters to different sequences that dictate the order (or timing) at which each cluster will switch to the intervention condition. The statement was developed to allow for the unique characteristics of this increasingly used study design. The guideline was developed using a Delphi survey and consensus meeting; and is informed by the CONSORT statements for individual and cluster randomised trials. Reporting items along with explanations and examples are provided. We include a glossary of terms, and explore the key properties of the SW-CRT which require special consideration in their reporting.

[...]random assignment permits the use of probability theory to express the likelihood that any difference in outcome between intervention groups merely reflects chance. 26 Third, random allocation, in some situations, facilitates blinding the identity of treatments to the investigators, participants, and evaluators, possibly by use of a placebo, which reduces bias after assignment of treatments. 27 Of these three advantages, reducing selection bias at trial entry is usually the most important. 28 Successful randomisation in practice depends on two interrelated aspects-adequate generation of an unpredictable allocation sequence and concealment of that sequence until assignment occurs. 2 23 A key issue is whether the schedule is known or predictable by the people involved in allocating participants to the comparison groups. 29 The treatment allocation system should thus be set up so that the person enrolling participants does not know in advance which treatment the next person will get, a process termed allocation concealment. 2 23 Proper allocation concealment shields knowledge of forthcoming assignments, whereas proper random sequences prevent correct anticipation of future assignments based on knowledge of past assignments. [...]assessments will likely improve the clarity and transparency of published trials. Because CONSORT is an evolving document, it requires a dynamic process of continual assessment, refinement, and, if necessary, change, which is why we have this update of the checklist and explanatory article.

Background Well designed and properly executed randomised trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the literature and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (e.g., personal communications). The list of potential changes to the checklist was assessed in a large, international, online, three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited international experts. Results We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points eliciting critical elements of each item. Conclusions Authors, editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT 2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent.

5-year results of the UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials suggested that lower total doses of radiotherapy delivered in fewer, larger doses (fractions) are at least as safe and effective as the historical standard regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions) for women after primary surgery for early breast cancer. In this prespecified analysis, we report the 10-year follow-up of the START trials testing 13 fraction and 15 fraction regimens. From 1999 to 2002, women with completely excised invasive breast cancer (pT1–3a, pN0–1, M0) were enrolled from 35 UK radiotherapy centres. Patients were randomly assigned to a treatment regimen after primary surgery followed by chemotherapy and endocrine treatment (where prescribed). Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre, type of primary surgery (breast-conservation surgery or mastectomy), and tumour bed boost radiotherapy. In START-A, a regimen of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks was compared with 41·6 Gy or 39 Gy in 13 fractions over 5 weeks. In START-B, a regimen of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks was compared with 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. Eligibility criteria included age older than 18 years and no immediate surgical reconstruction. Primary endpoints were local-regional tumour relapse and late normal tissue effects. Analysis was by intention to treat. Follow-up data are still being collected. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN59368779. START-A enrolled 2236 women. Median follow-up was 9·3 years (IQR 8·0–10·0), after which 139 local-regional relapses had occurred. 10-year rates of local-regional relapse did not differ significantly between the 41·6 Gy and 50 Gy regimen groups (6·3%, 95% CI 4·7–8·5 vs 7·4%, 5·5–10·0; hazard ratio [HR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·59–1·38; p=0·65) or the 39 Gy (8·8%, 95% CI 6·7–11·4) and 50 Gy regimen groups (HR 1·18, 95% CI 0·79–1·76; p=0·41). In START-A, moderate or marked breast induration, telangiectasia, and breast oedema were significantly less common normal tissue effects in the 39 Gy group than in the 50 Gy group. Normal tissue effects did not differ significantly between 41·6 Gy and 50 Gy groups. START-B enrolled 2215 women. Median follow-up was 9·9 years (IQR 7·5–10·1), after which 95 local-regional relapses had occurred. The proportion of patients with local-regional relapse at 10 years did not differ significantly between the 40 Gy group (4·3%, 95% CI 3·2–5·9) and the 50 Gy group (5·5%, 95% CI 4·2–7·2; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·51–1·16; p=0·21). In START-B, breast shrinkage, telangiectasia, and breast oedema were significantly less common normal tissue effects in the 40 Gy group than in the 50 Gy group. Long-term follow-up confirms that appropriately dosed hypofractionated radiotherapy is safe and effective for patients with early breast cancer. The results support the continued use of 40 Gy in 15 fractions, which has already been adopted by most UK centres as the standard of care for women requiring adjuvant radiotherapy for invasive early breast cancer. Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health.

We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the β version of the AGREE II. We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high- and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the β-AGREE II could be improved. The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Injury knowledge and beliefs influence uptake of prevention programmes, but the relationship between knowledge, beliefs and adherence remains unclear. To describe injury knowledge and beliefs among youth female soccer coaches and players, and to identify the relationship between these factors, different delivery strategies of the FIFA 11+ programme and adherence. A subcohort analysis from a cluster-randomised controlled trial of 31 female soccer teams (coaches n=29, players (ages 13-18) n=258). Preseason and postseason questionnaires were used to assess knowledge and beliefs. Teams recorded FIFA 11+ adherence during the season. At baseline, 62.8% (95% CI 48.4% to 77.3%) of coaches and 75.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 80.1%) of players considered 'inadequate warm-up' a risk factor for injury. There was no effect of delivery method (OR=1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5) or adherence (OR=1.0; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.1) on this belief. At baseline, 13.8% (95% CI 1.3% to 26.4%) of coaches believed a warm-up could prevent muscle injuries, but none believed it could prevent knee and ankle injuries. For players, 9.7% (95% CI 6.1% to 13.3%), 4.7% (95% CI 2.1% to 7.3%) and 4.7% (95% CI 2.1% to 7.3%) believed a warm-up would prevent muscle, knee and ankle injuries, respectively. Years of playing experience were negatively associated with high adherence for coaches (OR=0.93; 0.88 to 0.99) and players (OR=0.92; 0.85 to 0.98). There were gaps in injury knowledge and beliefs, which differed for coaches and players. Beliefs did not significantly affect adherence to the FIFA 11+, suggesting additional motivational factors should be considered.

Background: Clinical guidelines are a constructive response to the reality that practicing physicians require assistance in assimilating and applying the exponentially expanding, often contradictory, body of medical knowledge. They attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. Ideally, specific clinical recommendations contained within practice guidelines are systematically developed by expert panels who have access to all the available evidence, have an understanding of the clinical problem, and have clinical experience with the procedure being assessed, as well as knowledge of relevant research methods. The recent development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines has created substantial controversy because of their perceived lack of objective analysis and recommendations perceived to be biased due to conflicts of interest. Objectives: To formally and carefully assess the APS guidelines’ evidence synthesis for low back pain for therapeutic interventions using the same methodology utilized by the APS authors. The interventions examined were therapeutic interventions for managing low back pain, including epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, and spinal cord stimulation. Methods: A literature search by 2 authors was carried out utilizing appropriate databases from 1966 through July 2008. Articles in which conflicts arose were reviewed and mediated by a third author to arrive at a consensus. Selections of manuscripts and methodologic quality assessment was also performed by at least 2 authors utilizing the same criteria applied in the APS guidelines. The guideline reassessment process included the evaluation of individual studies and systematic reviews and their translation into practice recommendations. Results: The conclusions of APS and our critical assessment based on grading of good, fair, and poor, agreed that there is fair evidence for spinal cord stimulation in post lumbar surgery syndrome, and poor evidence for lumbar intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural steroids for conditions other than disc herniation or radiculitis, sacroiliac joint injections, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, endoscopic adhesiolysis, and intrathecal therapy. However, our assessment of APS guidelines for other interventional techniques, utilizing their own criteria, showed fair evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, caudal epidural injections in disc herniation or radiculitis, percutaneous adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome, radiofrequency neurotomy, and transforaminal epidural injections in radiculitis. Also it is illustrated that inclusion of latest literature will change the conclusions, with improved grading – caudal epidural, adhesiolysis, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks from fair to good or poor to fair. The present critical assessment review illustrates that APS guidelines have utilized multiple studies inappropriately and have excluded appropriate studies. Our integrity assessment shows deep concerns that the APS guidelines illustrating significant methodologic failures which raise concerns about transparency, accountability, consistency, and independence. Conclusion: The current reassessment, using appropriate methodology, shows evidence similar to APS guidelines for several procedures, but differs extensively from published APS guidelines for multiple other procedures including caudal epidural injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy, and percutaneous adhesiolysis. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, American Pain Society, interventional pain management, interventional techniques

Background Clinical practice guidelines are crucial for enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. Yet, their implementation remains inconsistent across various professions and disciplines. Previous findings on the implementation of the German guideline for schizophrenia (2019) revealed low adherence rates among healthcare professionals. Barriers to guideline adherence are multifaceted, influenced by individual, contextual, and guideline-related factors. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a digital guideline version compared to print/PDF formats in enhancing guideline adherence. Methods A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Bavaria, Germany, involving psychologists and physicians. Participants were divided into two groups: implementation of the guideline using a digital online version via the MAGICapp platform and the other using the traditional print/PDF version. The study included a baseline assessment and a post-intervention assessment following a 6-month intervention phase. The primary outcome was guideline knowledge, which was assessed using a guideline knowledge questionnaire. Results The study included 217 participants at baseline and 120 at post-intervention. Both groups showed significant improvements in guideline knowledge; however, no notable difference was found between both study groups regarding guideline knowledge at either time points. At baseline, 43.6% in the control group (CG) and 52.5% of the interventional group (IG) met the criterion. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the two groups at either time point (T0: Chi 2 (1)  = 1.65, p  = 0.199, T1: Chi 2 (1)  = 0.34, p  = 0.561). At post-intervention, both groups improved, with 58.2% in the CG and 63.5% in the IG meeting this criterion. Conclusions While the study did not include a control group without any implementation strategy, the overall improvement in guideline knowledge following an implementation strategy, independent of the format, was confirmed. The digital guideline version, while not superior in enhancing knowledge, showed potential benefits in shared decision-making skills. However, familiarity with traditional formats and various barriers to digital application may have influenced these results. The study highlights the importance of tailored implementation strategies, especially for younger healthcare providers. Trial registration https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00028895

In order to eliminate tuberculosis (TB) in the USA, primary care providers must take on an expanded role in the diagnosis and management of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations exist for LTBI management, but there is a need for innovative tools to improve medical students' and residents' knowledge of evidence-based practices for LTBI testing and treatment. To assess the impact of LTBI-ASSIST, a free online decision support aid, as a novel educational tool and mechanism of delivering clinical practice guidelines for medical trainees. A single site, randomized controlled trial of trainees delivered by electronic survey. Medical students and Internal Medicine residents at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Participants were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive the US clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for Latent TB management (control arm) or the guidelines plus an introduction to LTBI-ASSIST (LTBI-ASSIST arm) as they completed a case-based knowledge assessment and reported confidence with domains of LTBI care. (1) Proportion of questions answered correctly on a case-based knowledge assessment; (2) change in reported confidence with domains of LTBI care. One hundred and thirty participants completed the knowledge assessment. Those randomized to receive the LTBI-ASSIST Tool performed better on the case-based knowledge assessment with a mean score of 75.9% (95% CI: 70.6-81.1), compared to 57.4% (52.8-62.0) in the group that received the guidelines only (p <0.001). Similarly, the LTBI-ASSIST group reported a higher change in confidence (measured as post-assessment confidence minus pre-assessment confidence), compared to the control group, in six of the seven domains of LTBI care. LTBI-ASSIST can be an effective supplement to existing guidelines in educating medical trainees and helping providers find evidence-based, guideline-supported answers for questions encountered in clinical practice. NIH Clinical Trial Registry No. NCT05772065.