Background: Neurogenic bladder (NGB) is a chronic and disabling condition with a high prevalence rate, which can cause economic burden on patients and their families and reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have carried out a large number of clinical trials on the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for the treatment of NGB. The published clinical trials of NGB generally suffered from inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome indicators. To facilitate future research studies of NGB, a core outcome set (COS) is required, which helps translate the results into high-quality evidence. Methods and analysis: This mixed-method project has four phases instrument: in phase 1, a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials of interventions for NCB; in phase 2, a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of NGB patients, families, and their caregivers; in phase 3, Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes; and in phase 4, a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final NBG COS. Conclusions: We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials of NGB.

Background: Sjogren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic autoimmune rheumatic disease with an incidence of 0.03 to 0.3%. In recent years, there are an increasing number of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for SS. However, there are generally some problems in these published clinical trials: lack of reporting primary or long-term outcomes and the heterogeneous in different clinical trials' outcome. Our study aims to determine the priority outcomes and standard TCM syndromes for all stakeholders and reach agreement on the COS and syndromes to be measured and reported in all future TCM trials in patients with SS. Methods and analysis: A phase-wise refinement approach will be used, consisting of three phases, yet complementary, sub-work phases, whereby each phase will inform the next coming phases. The following are the three phases: (I-a) identifying of a long initial list of outcomes through systematic literature review and semi-structured qualitative interviews and (I-b) identifying an initial list of TCM syndromes through (1) systematic literature review, (2) referencing ancient Chinese medical books, and (3) retrospective studies of medical records; (II) prioritization of outcomes using Delphi survey with different stakeholders, such as health professionals and patients; and (III) through consensus meetings with patients and professionals to agree on the final COS and TCM syndromes. Discussion: We summarized the actions of COS into three points: direct action, indirect action, and final action. After the final COSs is completed, we will publish this research in a journal to promote communication.

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.

Background: Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis. Methods: We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov () to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.

Background: Individual-based models (IBMs) are useful to simulate events subject to stochasticity and/or heterogeneity, and have become well established to model the potential (re)emergence of pathogens (e.g., pandemic influenza, bioterrorism). Individual heterogeneity at the host and pathogen level is increasingly documented to influence transmission of endemic diseases and it is well understood that the final stages of elimination strategies for vaccine-preventable childhood diseases (e.g., polio, measles) are subject to stochasticity. Even so it appears IBMs for both these phenomena are not well established. We review a decade of IBM publications aiming to obtain insights in their advantages, pitfalls and rationale for use and to make recommendations facilitating knowledge transfer within and across disciplines. Methods: We systematically identified publications in Web of Science and PubMed from 2006-2015 based on title/abstract/keywords screening (and full-text if necessary) to retrieve topics, modeling purposes and general specifications. We extracted detailed modeling features from papers on established vaccine-preventable childhood diseases based on full-text screening. Results: We identified 698 papers, which applied an IBM for infectious disease transmission, and listed these in a reference database, describing their general characteristics. The diversity of disease-topics and overall publication frequency have increased over time (38 to 115 annual publications from 2006 to 2015). The inclusion of intervention strategies (8 to 52) and economic consequences (1 to 20) are increasing, to the detriment of purely theoretical explorations. Unfortunately, terminology used to describe IBMs is inconsistent and ambiguous. We retrieved 24 studies on a vaccine-preventable childhood disease (covering 7 different diseases), with publication frequency increasing from the first such study published in 2008. IBMs have been useful to explore heterogeneous between- and within-host interactions, but combined applications are still sparse. The amount of missing information on model characteristics and study design is remarkable. Conclusions: IBMs are suited to combine heterogeneous within- and between-host interactions, which offers many opportunities, especially to analyze targeted interventions for endemic infections. We advocate the exchange of (open-source) platforms and stress the need for consistent "branding". Using (existing) conventions and reporting protocols would stimulate cross-fertilization between research groups and fields, and ultimately policy making in decades to come.