Some CPG authors failed to fully disclose all financial conflicts of interest, and most guideline development panels and chairpersons had conflicts. In addition, adherence to IOM standards for guideline development was lacking. This study is relevant to CPG panels authoring recommendations, physicians implementing CPGs to guide patient care, and the organizations establishing policies for guideline development.

Our study found that trials that provided strong evidence for orthopaedic surgery guidelines were largely fragile, underpowered, and at risk of bias.

ObjectivesIt has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.ResultsA total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols.ConclusionsThe presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

No abstract

A new type of clinical summary, produced by copying standard descriptions of diseases on to a computer screen and editing them to match a patient's findings and diagnoses, was updated and reprinted as the patient's condition changed in the ward or as an outpatient. When this method was used to produce typed medical discharge summaries over a three month period, 73 out of 91 (80%) were sent out within a week after discharge compared with five out of 56 (9%) conventionally typed summaries received in a single general practice. Even completely new computerised summaries are quicker for the secretary to produce than conventional summaries, and the computerised summaries are designed to be scanned rapidly for relevant information. They can also be used to collect data automatically for research, clinical audit, and resource management.