The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011-15. During 2016-17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods for sample size estimation and data analysis. Only 66 (53.7%) of the articles reported appropriate methods for sample size estimation. Only 63 (51.2%) reported exclusively appropriate methods for analysis. These findings suggest that many investigators do not adequately attend to the methodological challenges inherent in group-randomized trials. These practices can lead to underpowered studies, to an inflated type 1 error rate, and to inferences that mislead readers. Investigators should work with biostatisticians or other methodologists familiar with these issues. Funders and editors should ensure careful methodological review of applications and manuscripts. Reviewers should ensure that studies are properly planned and analyzed. These steps are needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of group-randomized trials. The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken several steps to address these issues. ODP offers an online course on the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. ODP is working to increase the number of methodologists who serve on grant review panels. ODP has developed standard language for the Application Guide and the Review Criteria to draw investigators' attention to these issues. Finally, ODP has created a new Research Methods Resources website to help investigators, reviewers, and NIH staff better understand these issues.

No abstract

In 2021, PHR launched the Public Health Reports: Year in Review article series to inform its contributors and readers about its latest publication metrics, content, and planned improvements. 3 The series started with a review of the journal's publications and operations in 2020. This second installment compares 2021 and 2020 data and adds a few new metrics that were not captured in 2020 (eg, turnaround times associated with postacceptance editing). While the journal's content continues to be assembled into issues, the realities of scholarly publishing increasingly demand that articles be published online as soon as possible. To allow for historic volume-based comparison, the analysis of PHR's 2021 published content was performed by volume, not online publication date, making an exception for time-sensitive COVID-19 articles, which were analyzed by online publication date.

No abstract

Objective: Public Health Reports ( PHR) is the oldest public health journal in the United States and has reported on viral epidemics since the 19th century. We describe the creation and analysis of a collection of historic PHR articles on emerging viral epidemics in the United States to inform public health response to COVID-19 and future epidemics. Methods: We searched databases from 1878 through 2021 using custom search strings and conducted a manual search for articles published under previously used names for PHR. We evaluated all articles based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and coded the final list for virus/disease, article type, public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and PubMed citation count. Results: We identified 349 relevant articles including 130 commentaries/reviews/editorials, 79 epidemiologic reports, 75 research articles, and 65 case study/practice articles. The collection focused on influenza (n = 244), COVID-19 (n = 75), dengue (n = 14), and other emerging viruses, such as Zika and Ebola (n = 25). The collection included 48 articles on health disparities/health of various disadvantaged populations, highlighting such disparities as race and ethnicity (n = 22), socioeconomic status (n = 17), and age (n = 15). When we categorized articles by CDC public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities, we found that 207 addressed surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, 36 addressed community preparedness, and 28 addressed medical countermeasure dispensing and administration. The articles addressing surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, nonpharmaceutical interventions, and community preparedness had the most PubMed citations (799, 334, and 308, respectively). Conclusions: PHR’s historic articles on US emerging viral epidemics covered a range of virus/disease types, emergency preparedness and response capabilities, and contribution types and were widely cited in the scholarly literature. This publicly available and continuously updated collection is a valuable resource for pandemic planning and response.