METHODS: The study encompassed a comprehensive three-stage approach to the development and validation of the PROM. Initially, during the preliminary design stage, the necessity for a new PROM was recognized, an expert panel was formed, and semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with GSM patients. In the second stage, the study used the five-step pre-validation methodology established by Prior et al. to generate and refine the PROM items. The third and final stage encompassed the determination of scale and item content validity indexes to ensure validity. Additionally, the reliability of each construct was evaluated using Cronbach's α.
RESULTS: The resulting PROM was named GSM-SVTAQ (GSM-symptoms and vaginal treatments acceptability questionnaire). It demonstrated excellent validity in assessing symptoms burden, health-related and sexual quality of life, and vaginal treatment acceptability, with high content validity indices and strong internal consistency. The scale content validity indices and Cronbach's α coefficients for the three domains were (0.926, 0.939), (0.875, 0.947), and (0.824, 0.855), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The GSM-SVTAQ stands as the first GSM-specific, valid, and reliable PROM capable of comprehensively measuring the three components of GSM and the acceptability of vaginal treatments. Its implementation has the potential to significantly enhance patient care and outcomes in GSM management.
OBJECTIVES: The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature review covered the period between 1980 and 2022, focusing on successful HSS interventions within health systems' seven core components that improved maternal and perinatal care.
RESULTS: The findings highlight the importance of integrating quality interventions into robust health systems, as this has been shown to reduce maternal and newborn mortality. However, several challenges, including service delivery gaps, poor data use, and funding deficits, continue to hinder the delivery of quality care. To improve maternal and newborn health outcomes, a comprehensive HSS strategy is essential, which should include infrastructure enhancement, workforce skill development, access to essential medicines, and active community engagement.
CONCLUSION: Effective health systems, leadership, and community engagement are crucial for a comprehensive HSS approach to catalyze progress toward universal health coverage and global improvements in maternal and newborn health.
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.
MAIN RESULTS: The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.