Aim: Prediction intervals are a useful measure of uncertainty for meta‐analyses that capture the likely effect size of a new (similar) study based on the included studies. In comparison, confidence intervals reflect the uncertainty around the point estimate but provide an incomplete summary of the underlying heterogeneity in the meta‐analysis. This study aimed to estimate (i) the proportion of meta‐analysis studies that report a prediction interval in sports medicine; and (ii) the proportion of studies with a discrepancy between the reported confidence interval and a calculated prediction interval.Methods: We screened, at random, 1500 meta‐analysis studies published between 2012 and 2022 in highly ranked sports medicine and medical journals. Articles that used a random effect meta‐analysis model were included in the study. We randomly selected one meta‐analysis from each article to extract data from, which included the number of estimates, the pooled effect, and the confidence and prediction interval.Results: Of the 1500 articles screened, 866 (514 from sports medicine) used a random effect model. The probability of a prediction interval being reported in sports medicine was 1.7% (95% CI = 0.9%, 3.3%). In medicine the probability was 3.9% (95% CI = 2.4%, 6.6%). A prediction interval was able to be calculated for 220 sports medicine studies. For 60% of these studies, there was a discrepancy in study findings between the reported confidence interval and the calculated prediction interval. Prediction intervals were 3.4 times wider than confidence intervals.Conclusion: Very few meta‐analyses report prediction intervals and hence are prone to missing the impact of between‐study heterogeneity on the overall conclusions. The widespread misinterpretation of random effect meta‐analyses could mean that potentially harmful treatments, or those lacking a sufficient evidence base, are being used in practice. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be aware of the importance of prediction intervals.

Objective: Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.Methods: A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.Results: A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).Conclusions: There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are consensus criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition. This study aimed to investigate and compare the prevalence of malnutrition using the GLIM, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) criteria; compare the level of agreement between these criteria; and identify the predictive validity of each set of criteria with respect to 30-day outcomes in a large cancer cohort. GLIM, ESPEN and ICD-10 were applied to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in 2794 participants from two cancer malnutrition point prevalence studies. Agreement between the criteria was analysed using the Cohen’s Kappa statistic. Binary logistic regression models were used to determine the ability of each set of criteria to predict 30-day mortality and unplanned admission or readmission. GLIM, ESPEN and ICD-10 criteria identified 23.0%, 5.5% and 12.6% of the cohort as malnourished, respectively. Slight-to-fair agreement was reported between the criteria. All three criteria were predictive of mortality, but only the GLIM and ICD-10 criteria were predictive of unplanned admission or readmission at 30 days. The GLIM criteria identified the highest prevalence of malnutrition and had the greatest predictive ability for mortality and unplanned admission or readmission in an oncology population.

Purpose: Evidence-based guidelines for cancer strongly support nutrition and dietetic services for people with cancer and carers in order to improve patient-centred and health service outcomes. Access to nutrition services and information after completing active cancer treatment is relatively unknown in Australia. This study aimed to determine the availability, accessibility, barriers, and preferences to nutrition services and information after cancer treatment in Australia. Methods: Utilising mixed methods, people with cancer and carers completed a cross-sectional survey, and a sub-group of participants completed a semi-structured interview. The survey evaluated the availability of nutrition services, nutrition information searched, barriers, and preferences for nutrition information. Semi-structured interviews explored participant experience with nutrition services and information. Results: The 149 participants (including 10 carers) were predominately male and with a diagnosis of prostate cancer (63%). Overall, 23% of participants received nutrition information from a dietitian after cancer treatment. Participants (78%) indicated that accessing a nutrition specialist is the main barrier to receiving nutrition care after treatment. Most searched nutrition information on the internet (55%) and found the information easy to understand (89%), but conflicting (52%). Thematic analysis of interviews in fourteen cancer patients revealed three key themes pertaining to (1) preferred referral and timing of nutrition services, (2) lack of confidence in publicly available nutrition information, and (3) streamlining nutrition services for greater access. Conclusion: Access to a dietitian and evidence-based information after cancer treatment is limited for people with cancer and carers in Australia, despite the high interest and need for ongoing nutrition care. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Models of care evaluating the provision of appropriate nutrition care and information provision after cancer treatment are needed to address this unmet survivorship need.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer has been shown to deteriorate body composition (reduced lean mass and increased body and fat mass) and increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity. The Mediterranean style dietary pattern (MED-diet) and high intensity interval training (HIIT) may synergistically alleviate these side effects and improve quality of life in men treated with ADT. Methods: Twenty-three men (65.9 ± 7.8 years; body mass index: 29.6 ± 2.7 kg/m²; ADT duration: 33.8 ± 35.6 months) receiving ADT for ≥3 months were randomly assigned (1:1) to 20 weeks of usual care or the MED-diet (10 nutrition consults) with HIIT (4 × 4 min 85–95% heart rate peak, 3× week, starting at 12 weeks). Results: The MED-diet with HIIT significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness (+4.9 mL·kg⁻¹·min, p < 0.001), and body mass (−3.3 kg, p < 0.001) compared to the usual care group at 20 weeks. Clinically meaningful (≥3 points) improvements were seen in quality of life and cancer-related fatigue after 20 weeks. Conclusions: The MED-diet with HIIT increased cardiorespiratory fitness and reduced body weight in men with prostate cancer treated with ADT. Larger trials determining whether the MED-diet with HIIT translates to cardiovascular benefits are warranted.