Uses of expertise:Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news

Science journalists call upon experts for background and for clarification and comment on scientific findings. This paper examines how science writers choose and use experts, and it focuses on several cases of reporting about genetics and behavior. Our research included two sources of data: interviews with 15 science reporters and three print media samples of coverage of genetics and behavior - alcoholism (between 1980-1995), homosexuality (in 1993 and 1995), and mental illness (between 1970-1995). Science reporters seek relevant and specific experts for nearly every story. Good sources are knowledgeable, are connected to prestigious institutions, are direct and articulate and don't overqualify statements, and they return phone calls. The mean number of experts quoted was 2.8 per story, differing for alcoholism (3.5), homosexuality (2.8), and mental illness (2.6). Researchers and scientists predominated among experts quoted. Quotes were used to provide context, give legitimization, as explication, to provide a kind of balance, and to outline implications. For the homosexuality sample, a significantly greater percentage of activists and advocates were quoted (21 percent compared with 5 percent and 1 percent in other samples, X <0.0001). "Lay" quotes for alcoholism and mental illness were minimal. Except for homosexuality, whose advocates are organized, those "affected" do not have a voice in genetics news stories.

Epidemiology of giant retinal tears in the United Kingdom: The British giant retinal tear epidemiology eye study (BGEES)

To determine the incidence of giant retinal tear (GRT) in the United Kingdom and to provide epidemiologic data, clinical characteristics, treatment methods, and short-term outcomes in affected and fellow eyes. METHODS. Patients with a newly developed GRT (90° or greater in circumferential extent associated with posterior vitreous detachment) were identified prospectively over a 13-month period (January 2007-January 2008, inclusive) by active surveillance through the British Ophthalmic Surveillance Unit. Questionnaire-based data were obtained from reporting ophthalmologists at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS. Sixty patients (62 eyes) developed a new GRT, giving a U.K. annual incidence of 0.094 (95% CI 0.072-0.120) cases or 0.091 (95% CI 0.069-0.117) patients per 100,000. The GRTs were mostly idiopathic (54.8%), affected middle-aged (mean, 42.2 years), white British (93.3%) males (71.7%), with presenting vision worse than 20/40 in 59.7%, foveal detachment in 45.2%, and proliferative vitreoretinopathy of grade C (PVR-C) or worse in 11.3%. Treatment in most was managed by pars plana vitrectomy (93.5%) with laser retinopexy (52.5%) and silicone oil endotamponade (75.8%). Prophylactic 360° laser or cryotherapy was applied to 39.0% of the fellow eyes. At mean follow-up of 11.3 months, eventual retinal reattachment was attained in 94.7%, although only 42.1% achieved vision of =20/40. Neither GRT nor RD developed in any of the 19 nontraumatic, noniatrogenic, prophylactically treated fellow eyes. CONCLUSIONS. This study is the first population-based prospective effort to evaluate the epidemiology of GRT. Although onlya minority presented with PVR-C and high retinal reattachment rates were achieved, fewer than half had vision sufficient for driving in the GRT eye.

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using scanning laser polarimetry

PURPOSE: Scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) has been proposed as a useful diagnostic test for glaucoma. This study was conducted to evaluate the quality of reporting of published studies using the SLP for diagnosing glaucoma. METHODS: A validated Medline and hand search of English-language articles reporting on measures of diagnostic accuracy of the SLP for glaucoma was performed. Two reviewers independently selected and appraised the manuscripts. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of each publication. RESULTS: A total of 47 papers were identified of which the first 10 (from 1997 to 2000) and the last 10 articles (from 2004 to 2005) were appraised. Interobserver rating agreement of STARD items was high (85.5% agreement, ?=0.796). The number of STARD items properly reported ranged from 3/25 to 19/25. Only a quarter of studies (5/20) explicitly reported more than half of the STARD items. Important aspects of the methodology were often missing such as participant sampling (reported in 40% of manuscripts), masking of the readers of the index test and reference standard (reported in 20% of manuscripts), and estimation of uncertainty (eg, 95% confidence intervals, reported in 25% of manuscripts). There was a slight increase in the number of STARD items reported with time. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy tests for glaucoma with SLP is suboptimal. The STARD initiative may be a useful tool for appraising the strengths and weaknesses of diagnostic accuracy studies. © 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

The Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies of Optical Coherence Tomography in Glaucoma

Objective: To evaluate the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in glaucoma. Design: Descriptive series of published studies. Participants: Published studies reporting a measure of the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for glaucoma. Methods: Review of English language papers reporting measures of diagnostic accuracy of OCT for glaucoma. Papers were identified from a Medline literature search performed in June 2006. Articles were appraised using the 25 items provided by the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative. Each item was recorded as full, partially, or not reported. Main Outcome Measures: Degree of compliance with the STARD guidelines. Results: Thirty papers were appraised. Eight papers (26.7%) fully reported more than half of the STARD items. The lowest number of fully reported items in a study was 5 and the highest was 17. Descriptions of key aspects of methodology frequently were missing. For example, details of participant sampling (e.g., consecutive or random selection) were described in only 8 (26.7%) of 30 publications. Measures of statistical uncertainty were reported in 18 (60%) of 30 publications. No single STARD item was fully reported by all the papers. Conclusions: The standard of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in glaucoma using OCT was suboptimal. It is hoped that adoption of the STARD guidelines will lead to an improvement in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, enabling clearer evidence to be produced for the usefulness of OCT for the diagnosis of glaucoma. © 2007 American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Sample size in studies on diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology:A literature survey

Aim: To assess the sample sizes used in studies on diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology. Design and sources: A survey literature published in 2005. Methods: The frequency of reporting calculations of sample sizes and the samples' sizes were extracted from the published literature. A manual search of five leading clinical journals in ophthalmology with the highest impact (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology and British Journal of Ophthalmology) was conducted by two independent investigators. Results: A total of 1698 articles were identified, of which 40 studies were on diagnostic accuracy. One study reported that sample size was calculated before initiating the study. Another study reported consideration of sample size without calculation. The mean (SD) sample size of all diagnostic studies was 172.6 (218.9). The median prevalence of the target condition was 50.5%. Conclusion: Only a few studies consider sample size in their methods. Inadequate sample sizes in diagnostic accuracy studies may result in misleading estimates of test accuracy. An improvement over the current standards on the design and reporting of diagnostic studies is warranted.

Developing a Reporting Guideline for Social and Psychological Intervention Trials

Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them; however, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this article, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SPI (an extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study).

Reporting the preliminary findings of an RCT focusing on the educational outcomes of children in care

This paper focuses on the development of an RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of a book gifting scheme designed to improve the educational outcomes of children in care

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data The PRISMA-IPD Statement

IMPORTANCE Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas.

OBJECTIVE To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.

DESIGN Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus.

FINDINGS Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.