Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.

Improving the transparency and quality of reporting in biomedical research is considered ethically important; yet, this is often based on practical reasons such as the facilitation of peer review. Surprisingly, there has been little explicit discussion regarding the ethical obligations that underpin reporting guidelines. In this commentary, we suggest a number of ethical drivers for the improved reporting of research. These ethical drivers relate to researcher integrity as well as to the benefits derived from improved reporting such as the fair use of resources, minimizing risk of harms, and maximizing benefits. Despite their undoubted benefit to reporting completeness, questions remain regarding the extent to which reporting guidelines can influence processes beyond publication, including researcher integrity or the uptake of scientific research findings into policy or practice. Thus, we consider investigation on the effects of reporting guidelines an important step in providing evidence of their benefits

The RECORD reporting guidelines: meeting the methodological and ethical demands of transparency in research using routinely-collected health data.

Routinely-collected health data (RCD) are now used for a wide range of studies, including observational studies, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostics, studies of adverse effects, and predictive analytics. At the same time, limitations inherent in using data collected without specific a priori research questions are increasingly recognized. There is also a growing awareness of the suboptimal quality of reports presenting research based on RCD. This has created a perfect storm of increased interest and use of RCD for research, together with inadequate reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these data resources. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) statement was developed to address these limitations and to help researchers using RCD to meet their ethical obligations of complete and accurate reporting, as well as improve the utility of research conducted using RCD. The RECORD statement has been endorsed by more than 15 journals, including Clinical Epidemiology. This journal now recommends that authors submit the RECORD checklist together with any manuscript reporting on research using RCD

Health Researchers' Use of Social Media: Scoping Review.

BackgroundHealth researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature.MethodsThe scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence.ResultsA total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]).ConclusionsHealth researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use

Retraction of COVID-19 Pharmacoepidemiology Research Could Have Been Avoided by Effective Use of Reporting Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Two recent high-profile publications (and subsequent retractions) of pharmacoepidemiology studies reporting the effectiveness and risk of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients received international media attention. Transparent and complete reporting of these studies could have provided peer reviewers and editors with sufficient information to question the methods used and the validity of results. Since these studies used routinely collected health data, the guidelines for the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) should have been applied to ensure complete reporting of the research. METHODS: We evaluated the two retracted articles for completeness of reporting using the RECORD for Pharmacoepidemiology (RECORD-PE) checklist, which includes the checklists for the STengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and RECORD. We compared the proportion of STROBE, RECORD and RECORD-PE items adequately reported using Chi-squared statistics. RESULTS: In the article published by The Lancet, 29 of 34 STROBE items (85.3%) were adequately reported, compared with 3.5 of 13 RECORD items (26.9%) and 9.5 of 15 RECORD-PE items (63.3%)(χ2 = 14.839, P <0.001). Similarly, the article published in NEJM reported 24 of 34 STROBE items (70.6%), two of 13 RECORD items (15.4%), and 7.5 of 15 RECORD-PE items (50.0%) (χ2 = 11.668, P = 0.003). Important aspects of the methods unique to research using routinely collected health data were not reported, including variables used to identify exposure, outcome and confounders, validation of the coding or algorithms, a description of the underlying database population and the accuracy of data linkage methods. DISCUSSION: While STROBE items were generally adequately reported, RECORD and RECORD-PE items were not. Reporting guidelines should be effectively implemented in order for transparency and completeness of research manuscripts, allowing for adequate evaluation by editors and peer reviewers

Helping everyone do better: a call for validation studies of routinely recorded health data.

There has been a surge of availability and use for research of routinely collected electronic health data, such as electronic health records, health administrative data, and disease registries. Symptomatic of this surge, in 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (PDS) published a supplemental issue containing several reviews of validated methods for identifying health outcomes using routine health data,1 focusing on databases feeding the US Mini-Sentinel Program

The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient.

OBJECTIVES: To assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies. RESULTS: Of 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%). CONCLUSION: Most RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. METHODS: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. RESULTS: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting

Incidence of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in South Asian and Chinese People: A Population-Based Cohort Study from Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is now a global disease with incidence increasing throughout Asia. AIM: To determine the incidence of IBD among South Asians and Chinese people residing in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. METHODS: All incident cases of IBD in children (1994-2015) and adults (1999-2015) were identified from population-based health administrative data. We classified South Asian and Chinese ethnicity using immigration records and surnames. We determined standardized incidence of IBD and adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) in South Asians and Chinese compared to the general population. RESULTS: Among 16,230,638 people living in Ontario, standardized incidence of IBD per 100,000 person-years was 24.7 (95% CI 24.4-25.0), compared with 14.6 (95% CI 13.7-15.5) in 982,472 South Asians and with 5.4 (95% CI 4.8-5.9) in 764,397 Chinese. The risk of IBD in South Asians was comparable to the general population after adjusting for immigrant status and confounders (aIRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10). South Asians had a lower risk of Crohn's disease (CD) (aIRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60-0.77), but a higher risk of ulcerative colitis (UC) (aIRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34-1.61). Chinese people had much lower rates of IBD (aIRR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.28), CD (aIRR 0.21, 95% CI 0.17-0.26), and UC (aIRR 0.28, 95% CI 0.23-0.25). CONCLUSION: Canadians of South Asian ethnicity had a similarly high risk of developing IBD compared to other Canadians, and a higher risk of developing UC, a finding distinct from the Chinese population. Our findings indicate the importance of genetic and environmental risk factors in people of Asian origin who live in the Western world

Allied Health Professional Support in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Survey from the Canadian Children Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network—A Joint Partnership of CIHR and the CH.I.L.D. Foundation

Objectives. The current number of healthcare providers (HCP) caring for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) across Canadian tertiary-care centres is underinvestigated. The aim of this survey was to assess the number of healthcare providers (HCP) in ambulatory pediatric IBD care across Canadian tertiary-care centres. Methods. Using a self-administered questionnaire, we examined available resources in academic pediatric centres within the Canadian Children IBD Network. The survey evaluated the number of HCP providing ambulatory care for children with IBD. Results. All 12 tertiary pediatric gastroenterology centres participating in the network responded. Median full-time equivalent (FTE) of allied health professionals providing IBD care at each site was 1.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.6–1.0) nurse, 0.5 (IQR 0.2–0.8) dietitian, 0.3 (IQR 0.2–0.8) social worker, and 0.1 (IQR 0.02–0.3) clinical psychologists. The ratio of IBD patients to IBD physicians was 114 : 1 (range 31 : 1–537 : 1), patients to nurses/physician assistants 324 : 1 (range 150 : 1–900 : 1), dieticians 670 : 1 (range 250 : 1–4500 : 1), social workers 1558 : 1 (range 250 : 1–16000 : 1), and clinical psychologists 2910 : 1 (range 626 : 1–3200 : 1). Conclusions. There was a wide variation in HCP support among Canadian centres. Future work will examine variation in care including patients’ outcomes and satisfaction across Canadian centres