Objectives: This systematic review (SR) highlights principles for nutrient clinical trials and explore the diverse physiological functions of vitamin D beyond its traditional role in the musculoskeletal system related to clinical study designs. Background: Thousands of published research articles have investigated the benefits of vitamin D (a nutrient example taken in this SR) beyond the musculoskeletal system, including the immune, pulmonary, and cardiovascular systems; pregnancy; autoimmune disorders; and cancer. They illustrated vitamin D's molecular mechanisms, interactions, and genomic and nongenomic actions. Methods: This SR was designed to identify shortcomings in clinical study designs, statistical methods, and data interpretation that led to inconsistent findings in vitamin D-related publications. SR also highlights examples and insights into avoiding study design errors in future clinical studies, including randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). The SR adheres to the latest PRISMA statement, guidelines, and the PICOS process. Results: Inappropriate or flawed study designs were frequent in clinical trials. Major failures discussed here include too short clinical study duration, inadequate or infrequent doses, insufficient statistical power, failure to measure baseline and achieved levels, and recruiting vitamin D-sufficient participants. These design errors have led to misleading interpretations. Thus, conclusions from such studies should not be generalized or used in guidelines, recommendations, or policymaking. Conclusion: Adequately powered epidemiological studies and RCTs with sufficient vitamin D and duration in individuals with vitamin D deficiency reported favorable clinical outcomes, enriching the literature, enabling to understand its physiology and mechanisms. Proper study designs with rigorous methodologies and cautious interpretation of outcomes are crucial in advancing the nutrient field. The principles discussed apply not only to vitamin D, but also other micro-nutrients and nutraceutical research. Adhering to them enhances the credibility and reliability of clinical trials, SRs, and meta-analysis outcomes. The study emphasizes the importance of focused, hypothesis-driven, well-designed, statistically powered RCTs to explore the diverse benefits of nutrients, conducted in index nutrient deficient participants, and avoidance of study design errors. Findings from such studies should be incorporated into clinical practice, policymaking, and public health guidelines, improving the health of the nation and reducing healthcare costs.

Purpose of review: Glomerulonephritis refers to a rare group of diseases characterized by glomerular inflammation, which collectively are a common cause of kidney failure. Until recently, there was a lack of high-quality clinical trials to inform the care of patients with glomerulonephritides. We identified examples of successful translational research spanning from basic science to clinical applications, and highlight gaps in implementation science. Sources of information: The focus of our review was derived from discussions between health care professionals, researchers, and patient partners. We also performed literature searches pertaining to the treatment of glomerulonephritis in PubMed and Google Scholar. Methods: Examples of successful knowledge translation were generated through review of new evidence in the past 5 years and by iterative discussions by the authors. We then conducted a narrative review of several themes related to knowledge translation in glomerulonephritis. This was complemented by an interview with a patient partner to provide an example of a patient's perspective living with glomerulonephritis. Key findings: We summarized selected recent advances in glomerulonephritis and its knowledge translation in the following domains: (1) identification of auto-antibodies in membranous nephropathy and minimal change disease; (2) clinical trials of novel targeted therapies for IgA nephropathy and lupus nephritis, which have led to approval of new treatments; (3) developments in research networks and clinical trials in glomerulonephritis; (4) recognition of the importance in developing standardized patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials; and (5) barriers in knowledge translation including access to medication. Limitations: A systematic search of the literature and formal assessment of quality of evidence were beyond the scope of this review.

Simple Summary In multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, the measurement of the outcomes of treatment reported by patients (patient-reported outcome measurement) is useful to reveal how treatment affects the quality of life, symptoms, and side effects of treatment to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of a particular drug or drug combination. We evaluated the research reported in the literature to identify and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials. The most frequently used instrument was the generic questionnaire, named EORTC QLQ-30, used for cancer patients. The second most frequently used tools were the multiple myeloma-specific EORTC-MY20 questionnaires and the generic EQ-5D. Only 19 instruments reported in the literature were consistent with the trial design. The findings indicate that the measurement of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials for multiple myeloma patients is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of such questionnaires are needed to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of patients' views. This report is a valuable reference for the appropriate use of questionnaires for professionals performing clinical trials to ensure accurate and appropriate reporting of results for multiple myeloma patients and their caregivers and patient advocates. Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in supporting clinical outcomes in clinical trials. In multiple myeloma (MM), PRO measurement is useful to reveal how treatment affects physical, psychosocial, and functional behaviour as well as symptoms and treatment-related adverse events to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of a particular drug or drug combination. We report the types of PRO instruments used in MM, the frequency in which they are utilised in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the consistency of their reporting. Methods: The European Hematology Association (EHA) supports the development of guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with haematological malignancies. The first step is the present systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs in MM between 2015 and 2020. Study design, characteristics of MM and its treatment, the primary outcomes, and the types of PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a predefined template. Additionally, in a stepwise approach, it was assessed whether the identified instruments had been validated for multiple myeloma patients, patients with haematological malignancies, or cancer patients. Results: Following screening for RCTs, 283 studies were included for review from 10,707 records retrieved, and 118 of these planned the use of PRO measures. Thirty-eight PRO instruments were reported. The most frequently used instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30. The EORTC-MY20 MM-specific questionnaire was the second most frequently used (50 studies), together with the EQ-5D (50 studies). Only 19 PRO instruments reported were consistent with the trial registry. Furthermore, in 58 publications, the information on PRO instruments differed between the publication and the trial registry. Further, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Out of the 38 instruments used, six had been validated for patients with multiple myeloma (the most frequently used), six for patients with haematological malignancies, and 10 for cancer patients in general. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the measurement of PROs in RCTs for MM is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Guidelines for the appropriate use of PROs in MM are needed to ensure standardisation in selection and reporting. Furthermore, not all PRO instruments identified have been validated for myeloma patients or patients with haematological malignancies. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of PROs are needed in MM to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of PROs.

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166). Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: center dot There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: center dot This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. center dot Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

Objective: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. Study design: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. Results: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled < 50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. Conclusions: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Investigators have tested interventions delivered by specialty palliative care (SPC) clinicians, or by clinicians without palliative care specialization (primary palliative care, PPC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of SPC and PPC interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review secondary analysis. SETTING/SUBJECTS: RCTs of palliative care interventions. MEASUREMENTS: Interventions were classified SPC if delivered by palliative care board-certified or subspecialty trained clinicians, or those with extensive clinical experience; all others were PPC. We abstracted data for each intervention: delivery setting, delivery clinicians, outcomes measured, trial results, and Cochrane's Risk of Bias. We conducted narrative synthesis for quality of life, symptom burden, and survival. RESULTS: Of 43 RCTs, 27 tested SPC and 16 tested PPC interventions. SPC interventions were more comprehensive (4.2 elements of palliative care vs. 3.1 in PPC, p = 0.02). SPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (44%) or outpatient settings (52%) by specialty physicians (44%) and nurses (44%); PPC interventions were delivered in inpatient (38%) and home settings (38%) by nurses (75%). PPC trials were more often of high risk of bias than SPC trials. Improvements were demonstrated on quality of life by SPC and PPC trials and on physical symptoms by SPC trials. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PPC, SPC interventions were more comprehensive, were more often delivered in clinical settings, and demonstrated stronger evidence for improving physical symptoms. In the face of SPC workforce limitations, PPC interventions should be tested in more trials with low risk of bias, and may effectively meet some palliative care needs.

BACKGROUND: Advances in research and technology coupled with an increased cancer incidence and prevalence have resulted in significant expansion of cancer nurse role, in order to meet the growing demands and expectations of people affected by cancer (PABC). Cancer nurses are also tasked with delivering an increasing number of complex interventions as a result of ongoing clinical trials in cancer research. However much of this innovation is undocumented, and we have little insight about the nature of novel interventions currently being designed or delivered by cancer nurses. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise the available evidence from clinical trials on interventions delivered or facilitated by cancer nurses. DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBA) of cancer nursing interventions aimed at improving the experience and outcomes of PABC. Ten electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, CDSR, DARE, HTA, WHO ICTRP) were searched between 01 January 2000 and 31 May 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Bibliographies of selected studies and relevant Cochrane reviews were also hand-searched. Interventions delivered by cancer nurses were classified according to the OMAHA System. Heat maps were used to highlight the volume of evidence available for different cancer groups, intervention types and stage of cancer care continuum. RESULTS: The search identified 22,450 records; we screened 16,169 abstracts and considered 925 full papers, of which 214 studies (247,550 participants) were included in the evidence synthesis. The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (n=79) and USA (n=74). Interventions were delivered across the cancer continuum from prevention and risk reduction to survivorship, with the majority of interventions delivered during the treatment phase (n=137). Most studies (131/214) had a teaching, guidance or counselling component. Cancer nurse interventions were targeted at primarily breast, prostate or multiple cancers. No studies were conducted in brain, sarcoma or other rare cancer types. The majority of the studies (n=153) were nurse-led and delivered by specialist cancer nurses (n=74) or advanced cancer nurses (n=29), although the quality of reporting was poor. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to synthesise evidence from intervention studies across the entire cancer spectrum. As such, this work provides new insights into the nature of the contribution that cancer nurses have made to evidence-based innovations, as well as highlighting areas in which cancer nursing trials can be developed in the future.

BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive literature assessing associations between religiosity/spirituality and health, few studies have investigated the clinical applicability of this evidence. The purpose of this paper was to assess the impact of religious/spiritual interventions (RSI) through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Method A systematic review was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Collaboration, Embase and SciELO. Through the use of a Boolean expression, articles were included if they: (i) investigated mental health outcomes; (ii) had a design consistent with RCTs. We excluded protocols involving intercessory prayer or distance healing. The study was conducted in two phases by reading: (1) title and abstracts; (2) full papers and assessing their methodological quality. Then, a meta-analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Through this method, 4751 papers were obtained, of which 23 remained included. The meta-analysis showed significant effects of RSI on anxiety general symptoms (p < 0.001) and in subgroups: meditation (p < 0.001); psychotherapy (p = 0.02); 1 month of follow-up (p < 0.001); and comparison groups with interventions (p < 0.001). Two significant differences were found in depressive symptoms: between 1 and 6 months and comparison groups with interventions (p = 0.05). In general, studies have shown that RSI decreased stress, alcoholism and depression. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs on RSI showed additional benefits including reduction of clinical symptoms (mainly anxiety). The diversity of protocols and outcomes associated with a lack of standardization of interventions point to the need for further studies evaluating the use of religiosity/spirituality as a complementary treatment in health care

Though snake antivenom (SAV) is the mainstay of therapy for poisonous snake bites, there is no universally accepted standard regimen regarding the optimum dose (low vs. high). We therefore, undertook this systematic review to address this important research question. We searched all the published literature through the major electronic databases till August 2014. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. Eligible trials compared low versus high dose SAV in poisonous snake bite. The review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42014009700). Of 36 citations retrieved, a total of 5 RCTs (n = 473) were included in the final analyses. Three trials were open-label, 4 conducted in Indian sub-continent and 1 in Brazil. The doses of SAV varied in the high dose group from 40 ml to 550 ml, and in the low dose group from 20 ml to 220 ml. There was no significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except duration of hospital stay, which was lower in the low dose group. The GRADE evidence generated was of "very low quality." Low-dose SAV is equivalent or may be superior to high-dose SAV in management of poisonous snake bite. Low dose is also highly cost-effective as compared to the high dose. But the GRADE evidence generated was of "very low quality" as most were open label trials. Further trials are needed to make definitive recommendations regarding the dose and these should also include children <9 years of age.

Objective: A systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing depression treatments in primary care for Latinos is conducted. The authors rate the methodological quality of studies, examine cultural and linguistic adaptations, summarize clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness findings, and draw conclusions for improving depression care among this diverse population. Method: Electronic bibliographic databases, Web sites, and manual searches are used to identify nine peer-reviewed articles covering four RCTs. Results: Across trials, collaborative care models were more effective than usual care in reducing depression and improving functioning and accessibility to guideline-congruent care. Conclusion: The use of evidence-based treatments in primary care seems to be an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce mental health care disparities among Latinos served in primary care.