Introduction. Activities promoting research reproducibility and transparency are crucial for generating trustworthy evidence. Evaluation of smoking interventions is one area where vested interests may motivate reduced reproducibility and transparency. Aims. Assess markers of transparency and reproducibility in smoking behaviour change intervention evaluation reports. Methods. One hundred evaluation reports of smoking behaviour change intervention randomised controlled trials published in 2018-2019 were identified. Reproducibility markers of pre-registration; protocol sharing; data, material, and analysis script sharing; replication of a previous study; and open access publication were coded in identified reports. Transparency markers of funding and conflict of interest declarations were also coded. Coding was performed by two researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. Results. Seventy-one percent of reports were open access, and 73% were pre-registered. However, there are only 13% provided accessible materials, 7% accessible data, and 1% accessible analysis scripts. No reports were replication studies. Ninety-four percent of reports provided a funding source statement, and eighty-eight percent of reports provided a conflict of interest statement. Conclusions. Open data, materials, analysis, and replications are rare in smoking behaviour change interventions, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future smoking research should be more reproducible to enable knowledge accumulation. This study was pre-registered: https://osf.io/yqj5p.

Background: Laryngeal cleft (LC) poses a diagnostic challenge due to its rarity and non-specific clinical features. There is poor consensus regarding management as either conservative or surgical management may be appropriate for type 1 LC, given the spectrum of disease patients present with. The objective was to review the current literature and propose diagnostic and management pathways for type 1 LC. Methods: The study comprised a systematic review using data collected from PubMed, Medline and Cochrane library. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a validated tool. A metaanalysis of proportions was performed for the outcome of each treatment modality using MedCalc software. Results: Of 674 potential studies, 19 were included. Complete resolution rates of conservative management, injection augmentation and endoscopic surgery were 52.3% (95% CI, 32.3-71.9%), 69.2% (95% CI, 59.1-78.1%) and 65.4% (95% CI, 49.1-80.1%) respectively. There are research survey, diagnostic and treatment algorithms, and radiological investigations presented in the literature to assist in constructing an updated management algorithm. Conclusions: We recommend that all patients receive initial 3-month trial of conservative therapy. Endoscopic surgery may be considered if conservative management fails or in the presence of other surgical indications. Injection augmentation may be performed prior to definitive surgical repair in selected patients who have comorbidities that increase aspiration risk to evaluate the potential effect of surgery.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract