Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Although there is currently a large number of guidelines, expert consensus statements, and declarations on central venous catheters (CVCs), the methodological rigor and reporting quality of these documents remain unclear. Methods The study design followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, as well as guideline databases and websites specifically dedicated to infusion therapy, were comprehensively searched for articles and information on CPGs for CVC published from database inception until 2024. Excel was used for the extraction of basic information and recommendations for CVC care. Four researchers assessed the methodological and reporting quality of the CPGs via the AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT checklist. The review protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024513864). Results Thirty-seven guidelines and consensus statements regarding CVC placement were reviewed. The average scores for the AGREE II domains were 50.14% for scope and purpose, 36.84% for participants, 37.86% for rigor, 45.87% for clarity, 28.34% for application, and 47.11% for editorial independence. In terms of the RIGHT evaluation items, item 13a had the highest reporting rate at 100.00%, followed by items 1a at 97.00%, 1b at 95.00%, 4/5/6 at 92.00%, 2 at 89.00%, 7a/15/19a at 84.00%, 20 at 81.00%, 1c at 76.00%, and 9b at 73.00%, with items 12 and 17 both at 68.00% and item 16 at 65.00%. The remaining items had reporting rates less than 60%. Subgroup analysis revealed that guidelines generally scored higher than consensus statements did in all AGREE II domains (rigor, clarity, application, and independence). A comparison of the guidelines and consensus statements in terms of region indicated that the average scores for both were lower in Asia than in other regions, particularly in the areas of scope and purpose, participants, and clarity. In terms of publication year, guidelines and consensus statements published after 2017 scored higher in AGREE II clarity, as well as in the basic information and evidence dimensions of the RIGHT tool, than those published before 2017. Conclusions The quality of the guidelines varied, although five guidelines stood out as being of particularly high quality. These guidelines hold significant potential for practical application and could be modified to align with local regulations and protocols.

BackgroundA clinical practice guideline (CPG) reporting checklist is used to assist CPG developers in recording what content should be provided in a CPG report. Recently, two checklists have become available on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network website: AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation) published in 2016 and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) published in 2017. The objective of this study was to describe the advantages and disadvantages of these two CPG reporting checklists.MethodsTwo epidemiologists who lacked experience using both AGREE and RIGHT but were familiar with evidence-based medicine methodology independently compared AGREE with RIGHT on an item-by-item basis. Their assessments were compiled on a pre-designed data form and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Three other co-authors independently compared AGREE with RIGHT and decided if they agreed with the results of comparison of the two CPG reporting checklists from the first two co-authors. Finally, another co-author reviewed the comparison results to ensure that the description was clear and understandable.ResultsThe following six relationships between the two checklists were observed: (1) 11 items from AGREE completely matched with 12 items from RIGHT; (2) four items were listed in AGREE only; (3) 12 items were listed in RIGHT only; (4) three items in AGREE were partially covered by three items in RIGHT; (5) six items in RIGHT were partially covered by three items in AGREE; and (6) two items intersected across AGREE and RIGHT. Based on the comparison results, the potential impact analysis of selecting either checklist is described.DiscussionWe recommend that CPG developers use either AGREE plus items unique to RIGHT or RIGHT plus items unique to AGREE.

Background Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs. Methods The national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014–2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines ( n  = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF 10 ) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs. Results Overall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0–15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0–17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P  = 0.048; BF 10  = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF 10  = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF 10  = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF 10  = 16.90), primary intended users (BF 10  = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF 10  = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations. Conclusions Important methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can positively affect the quality of patient care offered by physicians because they decrease variability in clinical practice and may help reduce unnecessary testing, promoting a more responsible use of resources. Building on existing framework for reporting guideline development, including the work of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network, the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group created a 2016 checklist of 35 items considered essential for high-quality reporting of CPGs.To evaluate how many previously published CPGs in orthopedic surgery met the RIGHT criteria and assess how improvements can be made in future orthopedic CPGs based on any found deficiencies.All 18 CPGs published before January 1, 2018, by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) are publicly available on orthoguidelines.org. Two authors downloaded each file and both of those authors independently scored each CPG using piloted abstraction RIGHT checklist forms.Of the 35 RIGHT criteria outlined in 22 checklist items, 23 (65.7%) were met across all AAOS guidelines, 6 (17.1%) were not met by any of the AAOS guidelines, and 6 (17.2%) were met by some of the AAOS guidelines.Overall, the AAOS guidelines addressed many important recommendations within the RIGHT checklist. Assessing adherence to the RIGHT checklist can help ensure that future guidelines are more effectively communicated, hopefully assisting end users in efficient implementation and increasing the level of evidence-based patient care.

Starting with the Nuremberg Code in 1947, several guidelines were developed to formulate rules to guide research on humans and safeguard the rights and well-being of subjects participating in clinical research. In recent years, retrospective observational studies based on disease and drug registries, surveillance systems, hospital-based data lakes and platforms, and unstructured data have gained progressively greater attention in the medical literature. Although several guidelines and checklists are currently available to develop and evaluate a protocol for observational studies, issues concerning ethical considerations, data protection and data access have been often ignored. We propose the Data Protection and Good Epidemiologic Standard (DP_GOES) checklist for the development and evaluation of the protocol of observational, retrospective studies based on secondary data. The checklist is divided into four parts, 9 sections and 68 items, and should help to verify whether the study protocol respects the constraints of the regulatory requirements and provisions of data protection authorities, while ensuring that the study may generate robust evidence potentially useful to promote health, supplying more effective healthcare, and guaranteeing system sustainability. The DP_GOES checklist represents a novel and integrative contribution, as it systematically combines epidemiological research standards with data protection principles. Its practical value lies in offering a structured and operational tool that supports both researchers and evaluators in conducting and assessing retrospective observational studies based on secondary data in a rigorous, transparent, and ethically accepted manner.

The most happy and well adjusted people are self disciplined. They make a habit of being focused, leading a healthy lifestyle, being intellectually curious and enthusiastic. They know how to separate the urgent from the important. Self‐discipline enables you to get things done and command the respect of others.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a complementary infodemic, whereby various outlets and digital media portals shared false information and unsourced recommendations on health. In addition, journals and authors published a mass of academic articles at a speed that suggests a non-existent or a non-rigorous peer review process. Such lapses can promote false information and adoption of health policies based on misleading data. Reliable information is vital for designing and implementing preventive measures and promoting health awareness in the fight against COVID-19. In the age of social media, information travels wide and fast, emphasizing a need for accurate data to be corroborated swiftly and for preventing misleading information from wide dissemination. Here, we discuss the implications of the COVID-19 infodemic and explore practical ways to leverage health communication strategies to overcome it. We propose the “Infodemic Response Checklist” as a comprehensive tool to overcome the challenges posed by the current and any future infodemics.

Background Poor quality of care at health facilities is a barrier to pregnant women and their families accessing skilled care. Increasing evidence from low resource countries suggests care women receive during labor and childbirth is sometimes rude, disrespectful, abusive, and not responsive to their needs. However, little is known about how frequently women experience these behaviors. This study is one of the first to report prevalence of respectful maternity care and disrespectful and abusive behavior at facilities in multiple low resource countries. Methods Structured, standardized clinical observation checklists were used to directly observe quality of care at facilities in five countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. Respectful care was represented by 10 items describing actions the provider should take to ensure the client was informed and able to make choices about her care, and that her dignity and privacy were respected. For each country, percentage of women receiving these practices and delivery room privacy conditions were calculated. Clinical observers’ open-ended comments were also analyzed to identify examples of disrespect and abuse. Results A total of 2164 labor and delivery observations were conducted at hospitals and health centers. Encouragingly, women overall were treated with dignity and in a supportive manner by providers, but many women experienced poor interactions with providers and were not well-informed about their care. Both physical and verbal abuse of women were observed during the study. The most frequently mentioned form of disrespect and abuse in the open-ended comments was abandonment and neglect. Conclusions Efforts to increase use of facility-based maternity care in low income countries are unlikely to achieve desired gains if there is no improvement in quality of care provided, especially elements of respectful care. This analysis identified insufficient communication and information sharing by providers as well as delays in care and abandonment of laboring women as deficiencies in respectful care. Failure to adopt a patient-centered approach and a lack of health system resources are contributing structural factors. Further research is needed to understand these barriers and develop effective interventions to promote respectful care in this context.

Objectives When it comes to interviewing suspected terrorists, global evidence points to harsh interrogation procedures, despite the likelihood of false positives. How can the state maintain an effective counterterrorism policy while simultaneously protecting civil rights? Until now, the shroud of secrecy of “national security” practices has thwarted attempts by researchers to test apparatuses that engender fair interrogation procedures. The present study aims to test one approach: the use of a “procedural justice checklist” (PJ Checklist) in interviews of suspected terrorists by counterterrorism police officers in port settings. Methods Using a clustered randomized controlled field test in a European democracy, we measure the effect of implementing Procedural Justice (PJ) Checklists in counterterrorism police settings. With 65 teams of officers randomly-assigned into treatment and control conditions, we compare post-interrogation surveys of suspects ( n  = 1418) on perceptions of legitimacy; obligations to obey the law; willingness to cooperate with the police; effectiveness of counterterrorism measures; distributive justice; feelings of social resistance to the state; and PJ. A series of multi-level linear, logistic, and ordered logit regression models are used to estimate the treatment effect, with Hedges’ g and odds ratios used for effect sizes. Results When compared with control conditions, implementing a policy of PJ Checklist causes statistically significant and large enhancement in all measured dimensions, including the willingness of suspects to obey the law ( g  = 1.022 [0.905, 1.138]), to cooperate with the police ( g  = 1.118 [0.999, 1.238]), distributive justice ( g  = 0.993 [0.880, 1.106]), effectiveness ( g  = 1.077 [0.959, 1.195]), procedural justice ( g  = 1.044 [0.930, 1.158]), and feelings of resistance towards the state ( g  = − 0.370 [− 0.259, − 0.482]). Conclusions PJ checklists offer a simple, scalable means of improving how state agents interact with terrorism suspects. The police can use what is evidently a cost-effective tool to enhance legitimacy and cooperation with the police, even in a counterterrorism environment.

About the Authors: Philip E. Bourne * E-mail: pebourne@gmail.com Affiliation: Office of the Director, The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7618-7292 Jessica K. Polka Affiliation: Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America Ronald D. Vale Affiliation: Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3460-2758 Robert Kiley Affiliation: Wellcome Library, The Wellcome Trust, London, United Kingdom ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4733-2558Citation: Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R (2017) Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. [...]it could also be a paper that has been peer reviewed and either is awaiting formal publication by a journal or was rejected, but the authors are willing to make the content public. [...]a preprint is a research output that has not completed a typical publication pipeline but is of value to the community and deserving of being easily discovered and accessed. [...]of an ASAPbio meeting held in February of 2016, a paper was published [6] that describes the pros and cons of preprints from the perspective of the stakeholders-scientists, publishers, and funders. [...]when posting a preprint, authors are encouraged to use licenses and formats that facilitate reuse while retaining copyright to their work. The complementary roles of preprints and journals in establishing priority and validation, respectively, are discussed in a commentary by Vale and Hyman [13]. Since preprints may extend beyond traditional published papers, they create process of developing a...