Primary liver cancer is the sixth most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitutes the majority of primary liver cancer cases. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was introduced to standardize the lexicon, acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of imaging results in patients at increased risk for HCC. LI-RADS allows effective categorization of focal liver lesions, and has been applied in the full clinical spectrum of HCC from diagnosis, biological behavior characterization, prognosis prediction, to treatment response assessment. This review aimed to summarize the recent applications of CT/MRI LI-RADS in the diagnosis, biological behavior characterization and prognosis prediction of HCC, discuss current challenges and shed light on potential future directions.
Chinese medicine case report, a special method, records the experience of practitioners and guides students to inherit and develop Chinese medicine. It can transfer a large amount of medical and humanistic information and contribute to the development of Chinese medicine. It is a literary style that has been widely accepted and helps to document and disseminate the culture of Chinese medicine. With the advent of big data and information, more Chinese medicine case reports have been published. However, many have insufficient quality to properly guide and apply in the clinical practice, which might be caused by little guidance of Chinese medicine case report standards published. This paper summarized the case report standards, synthesized and appraised the feasibility and problems specific for improving the quality of Chinese medicine case reports, and proposed suggestions and guidance for developing the standardization of Chinese medicine medical case reports.
Objective The aim of this study is to construct reporting standards for acupuncture network meta-analysis, providing guidance to enhance the quality of evidence reported in acupuncture therapy research. Methods A Delphi questionnaire was developed based on the preliminary research and literature findings, 20 experts were selected for correspondence to determine the final checklists of items, and then finalized the list of report items. Results A total of two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were made. The expert positivity coefficient (100%), the expert familiarity (0.80) and the expert authority (0.83) were the same in both rounds, the Kendall's coordination coefficients were 0.117 (P<0.001) and 0.332 (P<0.001), respectively, which ultimately led to the formation of the 7 fields of title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other, including 23 specific items of the acupuncture-related therapies NMA standards. Conclusion The PRINMA-A statement will help to improve the reporting quality of evidence on acupuncture-related therapies, promote the dissemination and translation of evidence on acupuncture-related therapies.
With the increasingly prominent contradiction between limited health resources and the growing population, priority setting of health research, as a response, has received widespread attention from health systems worldwide. As the results of priority setting at different levels increase year by year, some questions in the results reporting are also constantly emerging. For example, the process of producing the results is vague, too dependent on individual subjective judgment, the participation of individual stakeholder groups is limited or lack of voice, unable to identify potential conflicts of interest, and so on. It does not only seriously affect the effectiveness and rationality of the results themselves, but also create intangible obstacles to their promotion and adoption. In 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology published ‘Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)’, which makes uniform specifications for more comprehensive and consistent reporting of results in priority areas. This paper interpreted the background, formulation process and key contents of the REPRISE guideline, with an aim to promote the application of the reporting guideline in China.
An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to report methodology and outcomes of research distinctly and transparently. There are some checklists with specific study types related to surgery on the EQUATOR Network’s website. However, the IDEAL framework focuses on stepwise evaluation of surgical innovation through all stages with some key elements, which those existing guidelines may not mention. This likely results in the inaccuracy in reporting in studies attempting to follow the IDEAL recommendations and suggests a pressing need for IDEAL reporting guidelines. Considering these limitations, the IDEAL developed the IDEAL reporting guidelines between October 2018 and May 2019. The paper aimed to provide interpretation of IDEAL reporting guideline, and promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.
ObjectivesTo investigate the status of clinical trial registrations (CTRs), ethical reviews (ERs) and informed consent forms (ICFs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were published in the top 20 journals included by Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), and evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs.MethodsWe selected top 20 high impact factor Chinese medical journals indexed by CSCD, the RCTs published between 2016 and 2017 were searched. The CTR, ER and ICFs for all RCTs were analyzed.ResultsA total of 395 RCTs were included for data analysis. Nineteen RCTs (4.8%) reported the information of registration. For the 4 traditional Chinese medicine journals, only 4 (1.9%) of 207 RCTs reported the registered information. For the 16 western medical journals, only 15 (8%) of 188 RCTs reported the registered information. There were 185 RCTs (46.8%) which reported the information of ethical review. Among them, 66 RCTs (31.9%) were published in traditional Chinese medical journals and 119 RCTs (63.3%) were published in western medical journals. There were 253 RCTs (64.1%) which reported the information of informed consent. Among them, 154 RCTs (74.4%) were published in Chinese medical journals and 199 RCTs (52.7%) were in western medical journals. In terms of methodology, approximately 299 RCTs (75.7%) reported the type of randomization where 60 RCTs (15.2%) reported the information of allocation concealment and 38 RCTs (59.6%) reported blinding.ConclusionsThe proportion of RCTs registration, ethical review and informed consent is still low and the methodological quality of the studies require to be improved. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the training of clinical trial methodology.
The PRISMA aims to enhance the transparency and reporting quality of systematic reviews. PRISMA 2020 is an update version of PRISMA 2009, which was published in BMJ in March, 2021. This article compared the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2009, interpreted PRISMA 2020 with representative examples, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand and apply this reporting guideline, thus to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.
ObjectiveTo investigate the application status of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and assess their reporting quality and summarize the existing problems, so as to promote the application of survival analysis and reporting quality. MethodsStudies that used survival analysis were collected from 1 492 studies published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology and Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment in 2013. The application status of survival analysis of included studies was analysed and their reporting quality was evaluated. ResultsA total of 242 survival analysis studies were included. Among them, the utilization rates of Kaplan-Meier method, life table method, log-rank test, Breslow test and Cox proportional hazards model were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41% and 46.28%, respectively. 112 studies did multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 396 end points and 10 different types of survival time were reported. Overall survival (OS) was reported in 233 studies (92.15%). Survival terms were defined to 158 end points (39.90%) of 103 studies (42.56%). The follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 studies (64.05%), of which 4 studies were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 studies were 100%. The main problems of survival analysis studies published in Chinese journals were as follows:None of the studies which used Cox proportional hazards model reported the proportional hazards assumption. None of the studies used the method of parametric survival analysis. 130 studies (53.72%) did not use the method of multiple factor analysis. 139 studies (57.44%) did not define the survival terms. Only 11 of 100 studies which reported loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. None of the studies reported the methods of calculating sample size. None of the studies reported the censoring proportion. ConclusionThe methods of survival analysis are used in a low rate in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and the overall reporting quality of survival analyses is poor. So the reporting guideline of survival analysis should be developed and the authors should be encouraged to cooperate with professional statisticians, in order to improve the design, analysis and reporting quality of survival analysis studies.
This study aimed to provide suggestions for future researchers to select and optimize sham acupuncture reporting guidelines in acupuncture clinical trials. Through qualitative analysis, we compared the basic information and concrete contents between Acupuncture Controls gUideline for Reporting humAn Trials and Experiments (ACURATE) and SHam Acupuncture REporting guidelines in clinical trials (SHARE) developed by researchers from China and Korea. In addition, the similarities and differences of the two guidelines were illustrated through a specific case. We found that the two guidelines had their own characteristics and emphasis in content, but both emphasized the reports of detailed information and background factors of sham acupuncture compared with the previous STRICTA and TIDieR-Placebo checklist. In terms of item division, we found that the ACURATE split the same topic into several items to emphasize the importance of each item content. SHARE emphasized the comprehensive reports of sham acupuncture by combining several items into a single item. In terms of item content, ACURATE also focused on combination therapy, the information regarding sham acupuncture provided to participants, and any differences in treatment settings between versus/sham acupuncture, which had some referential meaning for setting sham acupuncture control. SHARE also focused on sham acupuncture detailed information, practitioner, and modifications, etc. Case analysis showed that there were some "not reported" or "partially reported" items in both guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers can use the above two guidelines to complement and learn from each other to report sham acupuncture. In addition, it is necessary for researchers to verify the operability and practicability of the above two guidelines, and provide suggestions for optimizing and updating them in the future.