Explanipedia

Reporting of harms in systematic reviews focused on naltrexone: a cross-sectional study Open

J. Schnitker, L. Purcell, Morgan Garrett, Holly Flores, Audrey Wise , et al. · 2025

Background Naltrexone is a pharmacological intervention widely used for alcohol use disorder (AUD), opioid use disorder (OUD), and several off-label conditions. Systematic reviews (SRs) play a critical role in synthesizing data on the effi…

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Pertaining to Distal Radius Fractures: an Evaluation of the Reporting Open

D. B. Tanner, Jaydeep Dhillon, Ryan McIntire, Philo Waters, Samuel Shepard , et al. · 2023

Background Clear and complete reporting of clinical trial publications are critical for adequate reader appraisal. Given the proliferation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials, an investigation of their reporting is warranted. O…

Harms Reporting Is Inadequate in Systematic Reviews Regarding Hip Arthroscopy Open

Caleb Peters, Matthew Chancellor, Holly Flores, Audrey Wise, Morgan Garrett , et al. · 2023

With the magnitude of hip arthroscopic procedures being performed, adequate reporting of harms-related information in the research surrounding this treatment is essential in assessing the efficacy of the treatment. This study provides data…

A cross-sectional analysis of harms reporting in systematic reviews evaluating laminectomy Open

Haley Howard, Payton Clark, Morgan Garrett, Audrey Wise, Micah Kee , et al. · 2023

The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.

Sickle Cell Disease and Quality of Life: An Evaluation of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials Open

Abbey Renner, Mitchell Love, Elizabeth Garrett, Alexander Douglas, Micah Kee , et al. · 2022

Sickle cell disease significantly impacts one’s quality of life (QOL); thus, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have integrated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess patients’ health from their perspective. We aim to evaluate the com…

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study Open

Audrey Wise, Deepika Mannem, Wade Arthur, Ryan Ottwell, Benjamin Greiner , et al. · 2022

Objectives Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinic…

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials Open

Reece Anderson, Sam Streck, Griffin Hughes, Bethany Sutterfield, Micah Kee , et al. · 2022

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients’ perspective. This asses…

Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification? Open

Samuel Shepard, Audrey Wise, Bradley S. Johnson, Nicholas B. Sajjadi, Micah Hartwell , et al. · 2021

Context Considering the substantial increase in research funding in the field of urology, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. Systematic reviews (SRs) compile available evidence regarding a clinical question into a single c…

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis Open

Audrey Wise, Deepika Mannem, Jon Anderson, Michael Weaver, Micah Hartwell , et al. · 2021

Précis: In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors. Pur…

Use of systematic reviews to justify the conduct of urology clinical trials Open

Samuel Shepard, Audrey Wise, Bradley S. Johnson, Matt Vassar · 2020

Background Given the increased amount of research being funded in the field of urology, reducing the amount of research waste is vital. Systematic reviews are an essential tool in aiding in reducing waste in research; they are a comprehens…

The changing world of clinical trials 2003-2017: A view from the AspECT trial Open

Gavin Reilly, Love Sbl., Audrey Wise, C S Scudder, J Jankowski , et al. · 2017

The past two decades have seen dramatic changes in clinical trial conduct and methodology. From trial regulation to data analysis, the rapid rise of randomised control trials (RCTs) has introduced many new techniques. Some methods of desig…

Audrey Wise YOU? Author Swipe