Scientific progress, including in evidence-based medicine, requires all available evidence to be accessed, scrutinised, interpreted and used. Missing or incomplete evidence creates biases and errors in later research. Open science practices are movements and procedures that aim to increase transparency in science production. They aim to make scientific knowledge available, accessible and reusable, benefitting scientific collaboration and all society.1 Open access is a core component of open science that aims to help solve the problem of accessibility.2

One-third of individuals who sustain an acute lateral ankle ligament sprain suffer significant disability due to pain, functional instability, mechanical instability or recurrent sprain after recovery plateaus at 1 to 5 years post injury. The identification of early prognostic factors associated with poor recovery may provide an opportunity for early-targeted intervention and improve outcome. We performed a comprehensive search of AMED, EMBASE, Psych Info, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PubMed, CENTRAL, PEDro, OpenGrey, abstracts and conference proceedings from inception to September 2016. Prospective studies investigating the association between baseline prognostic factors and recovery over time were included. Two independent assessors performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies. A narrative synthesis is presented due to inability to meta-analyse results due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The search strategy yielded 3396 titles/abstracts after duplicates were removed. Thirty-six full text articles were then assessed, nine of which met the study inclusion criteria. Six were prospective cohorts, and three were secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results are presented for nine studies that presented baseline prognostic factors for recovery after an acute ankle sprain. Age, female gender, swelling, restricted range of motion, limited weight bearing ability, pain (at the medial joint line and on weight-bearing dorsi-flexion at 4 weeks, and pain at rest at 3 months), higher injury severity rating, palpation/stress score, non-inversion mechanism injury, lower self-reported recovery, re-sprain within 3 months, MRI determined number of sprained ligaments, severity and bone bruise were found to be independent predictors of poor recovery. Age was one prognostic factor that demonstrated a consistent association with outcome in three studies, however cautious interpretation is advised. The associations between prognostic factors and poor recovery after an acute lateral ankle sprain are largely inconclusive. At present, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any factor as an independent predictor of outcome. There is a need for well-conducted prospective cohort studies with adequate sample size and long-term follow-up to provide robust evidence on prognostic factors of recovery following an acute lateral ankle sprain. Prospero registration: CRD42014014471

We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR Network's database. In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the findings. Of the 405 screened records, 262 described the development of reporting guidelines. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past three decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2 to 151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

Background: Over 100,000 primary knee arthroplasty operations are undertaken annually in the UK. Around 15–30% of patients do not report a good outcome. Better rehabilitation strategies may improve patient-reported outcomes.Objectives: To compare the outcomes from a traditional outpatient physiotherapy model with those from a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty.Design: An individually randomised, two-arm controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment, a parallel health economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study.Setting: The trial took place in 14 NHS physiotherapy departments.Participants: People identified as being at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty.Interventions: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation package delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists compared with usual-care outpatient physiotherapy.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function); Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Quality of Life subscale; Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; and physical function assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. Data on the use of health-care services, time off work and informal care were collected using participant diaries.Results: In total, 621 participants were randomised. A total of 309 participants were assigned to the COmmunity based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA) home-based rehabilitation programme, receiving a median of five treatment sessions (interquartile range 4–7 sessions). A total of 312 participants were assigned to usual care, receiving a median of four sessions (interquartile range 2–6 sessions). The primary outcome, Late Life Function and Disability Instrument function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual-care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference 0.49 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 1.88 points;p = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months post randomisation. The health economic analysis found that the CORKA intervention was cheaper to provide than usual care (£66 less per participant). Total societal costs (combining health-care costs and other costs) were lower for the CORKA intervention than usual care (£316 less per participant). Adopting a societal perspective, CORKA had a 75% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Adopting the narrower health and social care perspective, CORKA had a 43% probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold.Limitations: The interventions were of short duration and were set within current commissioning guidance for UK physiotherapy. Participants and treating therapists could not be blinded.Conclusions: This randomised controlled trial found no important differences in outcomes when post-arthroplasty rehabilitation was delivered using a home-based, rehabilitation assistant-delivered rehabilitation package or a traditional outpatient model. However, the health economic evaluation found that when adopting a societal perspective, the CORKA home-based intervention was cost-saving and more effective than, and thus dominant over, usual care, owing to reduced time away from paid employment for this group. Further research could look at identifying the risk of poor outcome and further evaluation of a cost-effective treatment, including the workforce model to deliver it.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13517704.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

To describe the frequency of open science practices in a contemporary sample of studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods in the field of oncology. We conducted a systematic review, searching the MEDLINE database between December 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, for studies developing a multivariable prognostic model using machine learning methods (as defined by the authors) in oncology. Two authors independently screened records and extracted open science practices. We identified 46 publications describing the development of a multivariable prognostic model. The adoption of open science principles was poor. Only one study reported availability of a study protocol, and only one study was registered. Funding statements and conflicts of interest statements were common. Thirty-five studies (76%) provided data sharing statements, with 21 (46%) indicating data were available on request to the authors and seven declaring data sharing was not applicable. Two studies (4%) shared data. Only 12 studies (26%) provided code sharing statements, including 2 (4%) that indicated the code was available on request to the authors. Only 11 studies (24%) provided sufficient information to allow their model to be used in practice. The use of reporting guidelines was rare: eight studies (18%) mentioning using a reporting guideline, with 4 (10%) using the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statement, 1 (2%) using Minimum Information About Clinical Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, 1 (2%) using Strengthening The Reporting Of Observational Studies In Epidemiology, 1 (2%) using Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, and 1 (2%) using Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs. The adoption of open science principles in oncology studies developing prognostic models using machine learning methods is poor. Guidance and an increased awareness of benefits and best practices of open science are needed for prediction research in oncology.