Comparative mapping of the 22q11.2 deletion region and the potential of simple model organisms.

BACKGROUND: 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common micro-deletion syndrome. The associated 22q11.2 deletion conveys the strongest known molecular risk for schizophrenia. Neurodevelopmental phenotypes, including intellectual disability, are also prominent though variable in severity. Other developmental features include congenital cardiac and craniofacial anomalies. Whereas existing mouse models have been helpful in determining the role of some genes overlapped by the hemizygous 22q11.2 deletion in phenotypic expression, much remains unknown. Simple model organisms remain largely unexploited in exploring these genotype-phenotype relationships. METHODS: We first developed a comprehensive map of the human 22q11.2 deletion region, delineating gene content, and brain expression. To identify putative orthologs, standard methods were used to interrogate the proteomes of the zebrafish (D. rerio), fruit fly (D. melanogaster), and worm (C. elegans), in addition to the mouse. Spatial locations of conserved homologues were mapped to examine syntenic relationships. We systematically cataloged available knockout and knockdown models of all conserved genes across these organisms, including a comprehensive review of associated phenotypes. RESULTS: There are 90 genes overlapped by the typical 2.5 Mb deletion 22q11.2 region. Of the 46 protein-coding genes, 41 (89.1 %) have documented expression in the human brain. Identified homologues in the zebrafish (n = 37, 80.4 %) were comparable to those in the mouse (n = 40, 86.9 %) and included some conserved gene cluster structures. There were 22 (47.8 %) putative homologues in the fruit fly and 17 (37.0 %) in the worm involving multiple chromosomes. Individual gene knockdown mutants were available for the simple model organisms, but not for mouse. Although phenotypic data were relatively limited for knockout and knockdown models of the 17 genes conserved across all species, there was some evidence for roles in neurodevelopmental phenotypes, including four of the six mitochondrial genes in the 22q11.2 deletion region. CONCLUSIONS: Simple model organisms represent a powerful but underutilized means of investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying the elevated risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in 22q11.2DS. This comparative multi-species study provides novel resources and support for the potential utility of non-mouse models in expression studies and high-throughput drug screening. The approach has implications for other recurrent copy number variations associated with neurodevelopmental phenotypes

Learning best-practices in journalology: Course description and attendee insights into the inaugural EQUATOR Canada Publication School

Background and purpose Dissemination of research results is a key component of the research continuum and is commonly achieved through publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. However, issues of poor quality reporting in the research literature are well documented. A lack of formal training in journalology (i.e., publication science) may contribute to this problem. To help address this gap in training, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Canada Publication School was developed and facilitated by internationally-renowned faculty to train researchers and clinicians in reporting and publication best practices. This article describes the structure of the inaugural course and provides an overview of attendee evaluations and perspectives. Key highlights Attendees perceived the content of this two-day intensive course as highly informative. They noted that the course helped them learn skills that were relevant to academic publishing (e.g., using reporting guidelines in all phases of the research process; using scholarly metrics beyond the journal impact factor; open-access publication models; and engaging patients in the research process). The course provided an opportunity for researchers to share their challenges faced during the publication process and to learn skills for improving reproducibility, completeness, transparency, and dissemination of research results. There was some suggestion that this type of course should be offered and integrated into formal training and course curricula. Implications In light of the importance of academic publishing in the scientific process, there is a need to train and prepare researchers with skills in Journalology. The EQUATOR Canada Publication School provides an example of a successful program that addressed the needs of researchers across career trajectories and provided them with resources to be successful in the publication process. This approach can be used, modified, and/or adapted by curriculum developers interested in designing similar programs, and could be incorporated into academic and clinical research training programs

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome. Methods and analysis The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases. Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome. Methods and analysis The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases. Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums

Definitions, acceptability, limitations, and guidance in the use and reporting of surrogate end points in trials: a scoping review

Objective To synthesize the current literature on the use of surrogate end points, including definitions, acceptability, and limitations of surrogate end points and guidance for their design/reporting, into trial reporting items. Study Design and Setting Literature was identified through searching bibliographic databases (until March 1, 2022) and gray literature sources (until May 27, 2022). Data were thematically analyzed into four categories: (1) definitions, (2) acceptability, (3) limitations and challenges, and (4) guidance, and synthesized into reporting guidance items. Results After screening, 90 documents were included: 79% (n = 71) had data on definitions, 77% (n = 69) on acceptability, 72% (n = 65) on limitations and challenges, and 61% (n = 55) on guidance. Data were synthesized into 17 potential trial reporting items: explicit statements on the use of surrogate end point(s) and justification for their use (items 1–6); methodological considerations, including whether sample size calculations were informed by surrogate validity (items 7–9); reporting of results for composite outcomes containing a surrogate end point (item 10); discussion and interpretation of findings (items 11–14); plans for confirmatory studies, collecting data on the surrogate end point and target outcome, and data sharing (items 15–16); and informing trial participants about using surrogate end points (item 17). Conclusion The review identified and synthesized items on the use of surrogate end points in trials; these will inform the development of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–SURROGATE and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–SURROGATE extensions

Effects of copy number variations on brain structure and risk for psychiatric illness: large-scale studies from the ENIGMA working groups on CNVs

The Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis copy number variant (ENIGMA-CNV) and 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome Working Groups (22q-ENIGMA WGs) were created to gain insight into the involvement of genetic factors in human brain development and related cognitive, psychiatric and behavioral manifestations. To that end, the ENIGMA-CNV WG has collated CNV and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from ~49,000 individuals across 38 global research sites, yielding one of the largest studies to date on the effects of CNVs on brain structures in the general population. The 22q-ENIGMA WG includes 12 international research centers that assessed over 533 individuals with a confirmed 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, 40 with 22q11.2 duplications, and 333 typically developing controls, creating the largest-ever 22q11.2 CNV neuroimaging data set. In this review, we outline the ENIGMA infrastructure and procedures for multi-site analysis of CNVs and MRI data. So far, ENIGMA has identified effects of the 22q11.2, 16p11.2 distal, 15q11.2, and 1q21.1 distal CNVs on subcortical and cortical brain structures. Each CNV is associated with differences in cognitive, neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric traits, with characteristic patterns of brain structural abnormalities. Evidence of gene-dosage effects on distinct brain regions also emerged, providing further insight into genotype-phenotype relationships. Taken together, these results offer a more comprehensive picture of molecular mechanisms involved in typical and atypical brain development. This "genotype-first" approach also contributes to our understanding of the etiopathogenesis of brain disorders. Finally, we outline future directions to better understand effects of CNVs on brain structure and behavior.Funding information: European Union's Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Number: CoMorMent project; Grant #847776; KG Jebsen Stiftelsen; National Institutes of Health, Grant/Award Number: U54 EB020403; Norges Forskningsråd, Grant/Award Number: #223273; South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Grant/Award Number: #2020060ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The ENIGMA Consortium is supported by the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) program under consortium grant number U54 EB020403 (PI: Thompson). OAA is supported by the Research Council of Norway, South East Norway Health Authority, KG Jebsen Stiftelsen, EU H2020. C. A. has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; Instituto de Salud Carlos III (SAM16PE07CP1, PI16/02012, PI19/ 024), co-financed by ERDF Funds from the European Commission, “A way of making Europe”, CIBERSAM; Madrid Regional Government (B2017/BMD-3740 AGES-CM-2), European Union Structural Funds; European Union Seventh Framework Program under grant agreements FP7-4-HEALTH-2009-2.2.1-2-241,909 (Project EU-GEI), FP7- HEALTH-2013-2.2.1-2-603,196 (Project PSYSCAN) and FP7- HEALTH-2013- 2.2.1-2-602,478 (Project METSY); and European Union H2020 Program under the Innovative Medicines Initiative two Joint Undertaking (grant agreement No 115916, Project PRISM, and grant agreement No 777394, Project AIMS-2-TRIALS), Fundación Familia Alonso and Fundación Alicia Koplowitz. R. A-A is funded by a Miguel Servet contract from the Carlos III Health Institute (CP18/00003). G. B. is supported by the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw (grants 91112002 & 91712394). A. S. B. is supported by the Dalglish Family Chair in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grants MOP-79518, MOP89066, MOP-97800 and MOP-111238, and NIMH grant number U01 MH101723–01(3/5). C. E. B. is also supported by the National Institute of Mental Health: RO1 MH085953, R01 MH100900 and 1U01MH119736. N. E. B. is granted the KNAW Academy Professor Award (PAH/6635). V. D. C. is supported by NIH R01 MH094524. S. C. is supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under the Specific Grant Agreement No. 945539 (Human Brain Project SGA3); Helmholtz Initiative and Networking Fund. C. R. K. C. is supported by NIA T32AG058507. E. W. C. C. is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ontario Mental Health Foundation grant MOP-74631 and NIMH grant U01MH101723–01(3/5). S. Ci. has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation under the Specific Grant Agreement No. 945539 (Human Brain Project SGA3). M. C. C. is supported by the Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. N. A. C. is supported by Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID Chile) PIA ACT192064. GId. Z. is supported by the NHMRC. J. L. D. and D. E. J. L. are supported by the Wellcome Trust. T. B. C. is supported by NICHD grant PO1-HD070454, NIH grant UO1-MH191719, and NIMH grant R01 MH087636-01A1. AMD is supported by U24DA041147. B. D. is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (NCCR Synapsy, project grant numbers 32003B_135679, 32003B_159780, 324730_192755 and CRSK3_190185), the Leenaards Foundation and the Roger De Spoelberch Foundation. SE is supported by the NARSAD-Young Investigator Grant “Epigenetic Regulation of Intermediate Phenotypes in Schizophrenia”. B. E. S. is supported by the NIH (NIMH). D. C. G. is supported by NIH grant numbers MH078143, MH083824, AG058464. W. R. K. is supported by NIH/MH R0106824. R. E. G. is supported by NIH/NIMH grant numbers MH087626, MH119737. DMMcD-McG is supported by National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), grant numbers MH119737-02; MH191719; and MH087636-01A1. S. E. M. is supported by NHMRC grants APP1103623; APP1158127; APP1172917. TM is supported by Research Council of Norway - grant number 273345. D. G. M. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London and S (European Autism Interventions)/EU AIMS-2-TRIALS, a European Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreements 115300 and 777394. T. N. was supported by Stiftelsen KG Jebsen under grant number SKGJ-MED-021. R. A. O. is supported by NIMH R01 MH090553. S. Y. S. has been funded by the Canadain Institutes of Health Research. M. J. O. is supported by MRC Centre grant MR/L010305/1 and Wellcome Trust grant 100,202/Z/12/Z; Dr. Owen has received research support from Takeda. Z. P. is supported by CIHR, CFI, HSFC. B. G. P. is supported by CIHR FDN 143290 and CAIP Chair. G. M. R. is supported by Fondecyt-Chile #1171014 and ANID-Chile ACT192064. A. Re. was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_182632). DRR is supported by R01 MH120174 (PI: Roalf). This report represents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London (to J. J. R). PSS is supported by NHMRC (Australia) program grant 1093083. J. E. S. is supported by NIH K01-ES026840. S. M. S. is supported by the Epilepsy Society. T. J. S. is supported by NIH grants R01MH107108, R01HD042794, and HDU54079125. I. E. S. is supported by South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (#2020060), European Union's Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Programme (CoMorMent project; grant #847776) and the KG Jebsen Foundation (SKGJ-MED-021). V. M. S. is supported by Research Council of Norway (CoE funding scheme, grant number 223273). D. J. S. is supported by the SA MRC. C. K. T. is supported by Research Council of Norway (#230345, #288083, #223273) and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (#2019069, #2021070, #500189). D. T.-G. was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI14/00639 and PI14/00918) and Fundación Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla (NCT0235832 and NCT02534363). Dvd. M. is supported by Research Council of Norway #276082. F. V. R. is supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award. deCODE genetics has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreements' no. 115008 (NEWMEDS) and no. 115300 (EUAIMS), of which resources are composed of EFPIA in-kind contribution and financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (EU-FP7/ 2007–2013). L. T. W. is supported by Research Council of Norway, European Research Council. The IDIVAL neuroimage unit is supported by Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI020499, research funding SCIII-INT13/0014, MICINN research funding SAF2010-20840-C02- 02, SAF2013-46292-R. The TOP/NORMENT study are supported by the Research Council of Norway (#223273). The GOBS study data collection was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants: R01 MH078143, R01 MH078111, and R01 MH083824 with work conducted in part in facilities constructed under the support of NIH grant number C06 RR020547. The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study has been funded by three National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program Grants (ID No. ID350833, ID568969, and APP1093083). We thank the participants and their informants for their time and generosity in contributing to this research. We also acknowledge the MAS research team: https://cheba.unsw.edu.au/researchprojects/sydney-memory-and-ageing-study. We acknowledge the contribution of the OATS research team (https://cheba.unsw.edu.au/ project/older-australian-twins-study) to this study. The OATS study has been funded by a National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Australian Research Council (ARC) Strategic Award Grant of the Aging Well, Aging Productively Program (ID No. 401162); NHMRC Project (seed) Grants (ID No. 1024224 and 1025243); NHMRC Project Grants (ID No. 1045325 and 1085606); and NHMRC Program Grants (ID No. 568969 and 1093083). We thank the participants for their time and generosity in contributing to this research. This research was facilitated through access to Twins Research Australia, a national resource supported by a Centre of Research Excellence Grant (ID No. 1079102) from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The NCNG sample collection was supported by grants from the Bergen Research Foundation and the University of Bergen, the Dr Einar Martens Fund, the KG Jebsen Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, to S. L. H., V. M. S., A. J. L., and T. E. The authors thank Dr. Eike Wehling for recruiting participants in Bergen, and Professor Jonn-Terje Geitung and Haraldplass Deaconess Hospital for access to the MRI facility. Additional support by RCN grants 177458/V50 and 231286/F20. The Betula study was supported by a Wallenberg Scholar Grant (KAW). The HUNT Study is a collaboration between HUNT Research Centre (Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU—Norwegian University of Science and Technology), Nord-Trøndelag County Council, Central Norway Health Authority, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. HUNT-MRI was funded by the Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the Norwegian National Advisory Unit for functional MRI. Research for the GAP cohort was supported by the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Center for Mental Health award to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. S.J. is supported by Calcul Quebec (http:// www.calculquebec.ca), Compute Canada (http://www.computecanada. ca), the Brain Canada Multi investigator research initiative (MIRI), the Institute of Data Valorization (Canada First Research Excellence Fund), CHIR, Canada Research Chairs and the Jeanne et Jean Louis Levesque Foundation. The NTR cohort was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), MW904-61-193 (de Geus & Boomsma), MaGWnr: 400-07-080 (van 't Ent), MagW 480-04-004 (Boomsma), NWO/SPI 56-464-14,192 (Boomsma), the European Research Council, ERC-230374 (Boomsma), and Amsterdam Neuroscience. Funding for genotyping was obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIMH U24 MH068457-06; Grand Opportunity grants 1RC2 MH089951, and 1RC2 MH089995); the Avera Institute for Human Genetics, Sioux Falls, South Dakota (USA). Part of the genotyping and analyses were funded by the Genetic Association Information Network (GAIN) of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The Brainscale study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research MagW 480-04-004 (Boomsma), 51.02.060 (Hilleke Hulshoff Pol), 668.772 (Boomsma & Hulshoff Pol); NWO/SPI 56-464-14192 (Boomsma), the European Research Council (ERC230374) (Boomsma), High Potential Grant Utrecht University (Hulshoff Pol), NWO Brain and Cognition 433-09-220 (Hulshoff Pol). SHIP is part of the Community Medicine Research net of the University of Greifswald, Germany, which is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants no. 01ZZ9603, 01ZZ0103, and 01ZZ0403), the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the Social Ministry of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Genome-wide SNP typing in SHIP and MRI scans in SHIP and SHIP-TREND have been supported by a joint grant from Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany and the Federal State of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. The ENIGMA-22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome Working Group wishes to acknowledge our dear colleague Dr. Clodagh Murphy, who sadly passed away in April 2020. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

Heterogeneity and gaps in reporting primary outcomes from neonatal trials

OBJECTIVES: Clear outcome reporting in clinical trials facilitates accurate interpretation and applica- tion of findings and improves evidence-informed decision-making. Standardized core outcomes for reporting neonatal trials have been developed, but little is known about how primary out- comes are reported in neonatal trials. Our aim was to identify strengths and weaknesses of pri- mary outcome reporting in recent neonatal trials. METHODS: Neonatal trials including $100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials’ primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selec- tion, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed. RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neona- tology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials