Evaluation of [125I]IPOS as a molecular imaging probe for hypoxia-inducible factor-1-active regions in a tumor: comparison among single-photon emission computed tomography/X-ray computed tomography imaging, autoradiography, and immunohistochemistry.

To image hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1)-active tumors, we previously developed a chimeric protein probe ([(123/125) I]IPOS) that is degraded in the same manner as HIF-1α under normoxic conditions. In the present study, we aim to show that the accumulation of radioiodinated POS reflects the expression of HIF-1. In vivo single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/X-ray CT (CT) imaging, autoradiography, and double-fluorescent immunostaining for HIF-1α and pimonidazole (PIMO) were carried out 24 h after the injection of [(125) I]IPOS. Tumor metabolite analysis was also carried out. A tumor was clearly visualized by multi-pinhole, high-resolution SPECT/CT imaging with [(125) I]IPOS. The obtained images were in accordance with the corresponding autoradiograms and with the results of ex vivo biodistribution. A metabolite analysis revealed that 77% of the radioactivity was eluted in the macromolecular fraction, suggesting that the radioactivity mainly existed as [(125) I]IPOS in the tumors. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the HIF-1α-positive areas and PIMO-positive areas were not always identical, only some of the regions were positive for both markers. The areas showing [(125) I]IPOS accumulation were positively and significantly correlated with the HIF-1α-positive areas (R = 0.75, P < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient between [(125) I]IPOS-accumulated areas and HIF-1α-positive areas was significantly greater than that between the [(125) I]IPOS-accumulated areas and the PIMO-positive areas (P < 0.01). These findings indicate that [(125) I]IPOS accumulation reflects HIF-1 expression. Thus, [(123/125) I]IPOS can serve as a useful probe for the molecular imaging of HIF-1-active tumors

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more