To evaluate if trans-arterial embolization (TAE) of the primary tumor in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) improves symptomatology such as pain and hematuria or oncologic outcomes such as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The systematic review search included PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, and Embase for full-text English articles including randomized and non-randomized prospective trials as well as prospective and retrospective case series. To be included, prospective trials needed ≥ 25 patients in each arm while case series and retrospective chart reviews required at least two patients. Evaluated outcomes included PFS, OS, change in tumor size, improvements in pain, improvements in hematuria, and adverse events (AEs). 1327 articles were retrieved and screened. Nine studies met inclusion criteria (retrospective case series, n = 8; non-randomized prospective trial, n = 1) which included 237 patients (M = 156 (65.8%); F = 56 (23.6%); gender unreported = 25 (10.5%); mean age: 69.4 (range: 38–87)) with a mean tumor diameter of 9.3 cm (5.2–10.5). When reported, the TNM stages were stage I (n = 10), II (n = 18), III (n = 36), and IV (n = 121). 60 patients were treated for pain and hematuria. After TAE, pain improved in 59 patients (98.3%) and hematuria improved in 57 patients (95%). A meta-analysis for improvements in pain and hematuria demonstrated an event rate of pain improvement of 0.952 (0.788–0.990; p < 0.001) and an event rate for hematuria improvement of 0.923 (0.809–0.971; p < 0.001). Median OS ranged from 1 to 39 months but only one study reported PFS (10.5 months). Only one study demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS with TAE when compared with patients that did not undergo TAE (p = 0.02). A reduction in tumor size was only achieved in 17 patients (17/49; 34.7%) limiting evaluation. AEs included fever (n = 115/237; 48.5%), flank pain (n = 72/237; 30.4%), nausea (n = 58/237; 24.5%), hematuria (n = 12/237; 5.1%), hypertension (n = 12/237; 5.1%), reduced GFR (n = 6/237; 2.5%), hematoma (n = 6/237,2.5%), and ileus (n = 3/237; 1.3%). TAE monotherapy of the primary tumor in patients with RCC improves symptomatology such as pain and hematuria with an acceptable safety profile.

Objectives It has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Results A total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols. Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

Objective: To assess the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies (DAS) referenced by the Quality Improvement Guidelines for Diagnostic Arteriography and their adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement.Materials and Methods: Citations specific to the Society of Interventional Radiology's Quality Improvement Guidelines for Diagnostic Arteriography were collected. Using the 34-item STARD checklist, two authors in a duplicate and blinded fashion documented the number of items reported per diagnostic accuracy study. Authors met, and any discrepancies were resolved in a resolution meeting.Results: Of the 26 diagnostic accuracy studies included, the mean number of STARD items reported was 17.8 (SD ± 3.1). The median adherence was 18 (IQR, 17-19) items. Ten articles were published prior to 2003, the original date of STARD publication, and 16 articles were published after 2003. The mean number of reported items for the articles published prior to STARD 2003, and after STARD 2003 was 17.4 (SD ± 2.4) and 18.1 (SD ± 3.5), respectively. There were 14 STARD items that demonstrated an adherence of < 25%, and 13 an adherence > 75%.Conclusion: The dichotomous distribution of adherence to the STARD statement by DAS investigated demonstrates that areas of deficient reporting may be present and require attention to ensure complete and transparent reporting in the future.

Background Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. Purpose To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility. Methods This cross-sectional retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for publications contained within journals in the field of radiology. Our inclusion criteria were being MEDLINE indexed, written in English, and published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications for this study. A pilot-tested Google form was used to record information from the publications regarding indicators of reproducibility. Following peer-review, we extracted data from an additional 200 publications in an attempt to reproduce our initial results. The additional 200 publications were selected from the list of initially randomized publications. Results Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met inclusion criteria and 6 did not. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% (11/195, [3.0–8.3]) contained a data availability statement, 0.51% (1/195) provided clear documented raw data, 12.0% (23/191, [8.4–15.7]) provided a materials availability statement, 0% provided analysis scripts, 4.1% (8/195, [1.9–6.3]) provided a pre-registration statement, 2.1% (4/195, [0.4–3.7]) provided a protocol statement, and 3.6% (7/195, [1.5–5.7]) were pre-registered. The validation study of the 5 key indicators of reproducibility—availability of data, materials, protocols, analysis scripts, and pre-registration—resulted in 2 indicators (availability of protocols and analysis scripts) being reproduced, as they fell within the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions from the original sample. However, materials’ availability and pre-registration proportions from the validation sample were lower than what was found in the original sample. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce studies contained in radiology publications may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.