EuroClonality/BIOMED-2 guidelines for interpretation and reporting of Ig/TCR clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations.

PCR-based immunoglobulin (Ig)/T-cell receptor (TCR) clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations has largely been standardized and has consequently become technically feasible in a routine diagnostic setting. Standardization of the pre-analytical and post-analytical phases is now essential to prevent misinterpretation and incorrect conclusions derived from clonality data. As clonality testing is not a quantitative assay, but rather concerns recognition of molecular patterns, guidelines for reliable interpretation and reporting are mandatory. Here, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) consortium summarizes important pre- and post-analytical aspects of clonality testing, provides guidelines for interpretation of clonality testing results, and presents a uniform way to report the results of the Ig/TCR assays. Starting from an immunobiological concept, two levels to report Ig/TCR profiles are discerned: the technical description of individual (multiplex) PCR reactions and the overall molecular conclusion for B and T cells. Collectively, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) guidelines and consensus reporting system should help to improve the general performance level of clonality assessment and interpretation, which will directly impact on routine clinical management (standardized best-practice) in patients with suspected lymphoproliferations.

Making charity effectiveness transparent: building a stakeholder-focused framework of reporting

Effectiveness in achieving mission is fundamental to evaluating charity performance, and is of central concern to stakeholders who fund, regulate and otherwise engage with such organisations. Exploring the meaning of transparency in the context of stakeholder engagement, and utilising previous research and authoritative sector discussion, this paper develops a novel framework of transparent, stakeholder-focused effectiveness reporting. It is contended that such reporting can assist the charity sector in discharging accountability, gaining legitimacy, and in sharpening mission-centred managerial decision making. Then applying this to UK charities’ publicly-available communications, it highlights significant challenges and weaknesses in current effectiveness reporting.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research.
Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical
appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy
studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here
we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every
report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of
bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such,
STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy
studies.