Reporting Guidelines

STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK… and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll?

This study evaluated the completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in radiology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts guidelines between articles published before and those published after the issuance of the guideline and identify areas that have been poorly reported.

PubMed were searched for systematic reviews on DTA with or without meta-analyses published in general radiology journals between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. The identified articles were assessed for completeness of reporting according to the PRISMA-DTA. Subgroup analyses were performed for association of completeness of reporting with multiple cofactors.

The search identified 183 reviews from 12 journals. The mean numbers (standard deviation) of reported PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts items in the full texts and abstracts were 18.45 (2.02) and 5.66 (1.28), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that compared to the corresponding reference groups, a higher mean number of reported PRISMA-DTA items was associated with publication during July 2018–December 2020 [(17.82 (2.01) vs 18.89 (1.91); p = 0.034), citation of the PRISMA-DTA [17.62 (1.86) vs 20.27 (2.02); p < 0.001], and inclusion of supplementary materials [17.64 (2) vs 19.09 (1.8); p < 0.001] on multiple-linear regression analysis.

Completeness of reporting with respect to the PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts has improved modestly since the publication of the PRISMA-DTA guideline; however, increasing awareness of the specific weakness provides the chance for completeness improvement.

Higher outdoor temperature may be related to an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. We investigated the association between local outdoor air temperature and the incidence of extended-spectrum betalactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) correcting for known drivers of antibiotic resistance.

We performed a time-series regression study using prospectively collected weekly surveillance data on all ESBL-PE isolated from in- and outpatients of the University Hospital Basel, a tertiary care center in Switzerland, between 01/2008–12/2017. Temperature was measured hourly at the meteorological institute of the University Basel next to our institution over this time period. A time-series approach using a Poisson regression model and different lag terms for delayed exposure effects was performed to assess associations between minimal, mean and maximal weekly temperature and the number of ESBL-PE recovered.

Over 10 years, recovery of ESBL-PE increased (annual incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.14, 95%CI 1.13–1.16), while mean weekly temperature measures remained stable. In multivariable analyses, increasing temperature was associated with higher recovery rates of ESBL-PE after three to four weeks, correcting for potential confounders, such as the number of admissions, proportion of long-term nursing facility- and ICU-admissions, age, Charlson comorbidity index and consumption of antimicrobials (IRRs per 10 °C ranging from 1.14 to 1.22, 95%CIs 1.07–1.33). These trends remained when analyzing correlations between temperature with the proportion of extended spectrum cephalosporin resistance of all recovered Enterobacteriaceae.

Higher outdoor temperature may be associated with an increase of ESBL-PE-incidence, independent of important confounders, such as antimicrobial consumption and thus should be considered for future resistance-trajectories.

Study reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study improve its potential for reproduction. Efforts to reproduce noteworthy studies in the biomedical sciences have resulted in an overwhelming majority of them being found to be unreplicable, causing concern for the integrity of research in other fields, including medical specialties. Here, we analyzed the reproducibility of studies in the field of pulmonology.

500 pulmonology articles were randomly selected from an initial PubMed search for data extraction. Two authors scoured these articles for reproducibility indicators including materials, protocols, raw data, analysis scripts, inclusion in systematic reviews, and citations by replication studies as well as other factors of research transparency including open accessibility, funding source and competing interest disclosures, and study preregistration.

Few publications included statements regarding materials (10%), protocols (1%), data (15%), and analysis script (0%) availability. Less than 10% indicated preregistration. More than half of the publications analyzed failed to provide a funding statement. Conversely, 63% of the publications were open access and 73% included a conflict of interest statement.

Overall, our study indicates pulmonology research is currently lacking in efforts to increase replicability. Future studies should focus on providing sufficient information regarding materials, protocols, raw data, and analysis scripts, among other indicators, for the sake of clinical decisions that depend on replicable or refutable results from the primary literature.