Research Appraisals
Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.
Showing 2 appraisals
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine
Recommendations for disclosure of artificial intelligence in scientific writing and publishing: a regional anesthesia and pain medicine modified Delphi study
INTRODUCTION: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scientific process is advancing at a remarkable speed, thanks to continued innovations in large language models. While AI provides widespread benefits, including editing for fluency and clarity, it also has drawbacks, including fabricated content, perpetuation of bias, and lack of accountability. The editorial board of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) therefore sought to develop best practices for AI usage and disclosure. METHODS: A steering committee from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine used a modified Delphi process to address definitions, disclosure requirements, authorship standards, and editorial oversight for AI use in publishing. The committee reviewed existing publication guidelines and identified areas of ambiguity, which were translated into questions and distributed to an expert workgroup of authors, reviewers, editors, and AI researchers. RESULTS: Two survey rounds, with 91% and 87% response rates, were followed by focused discussion and clarification to identify consensus recommendations. The workgroup achieved consensus on recommendations to authors about definitions of AI, required items to report, disclosure locations, authorship stipulations, and AI use during manuscript preparation. The workgroup formulated recommendations to reviewers about monitoring and evaluating the responsible use of AI in the review process, including the endorsement of AI-detection software, identification of concerns about undisclosed AI use, situations where AI use may necessitate the rejection of a manuscript, and use of checklists in the review process. Finally, there was consensus about AI-driven work, including required and optional disclosures and the use of checklists for AI-associated research. DISCUSSION: Our modified Delphi study identified practical recommendations on AI use during the scientific writing and editorial process. The workgroup highlighted the need for transparency, human accountability, protection of patient confidentiality, editorial oversight, and the need for iterative updates. The proposed framework enables authors and editors to harness AI's efficiencies while maintaining the fundamental principles of responsible scientific communication and may serve as an example for other journals.
7 June 2026
Read appraisal →Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews
Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Coauthorship Network Analysis
BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections have gained popularity in the fields of orthopaedics and sports medicine despite inconsistent evidence regarding clinical efficacy. Concerns have placed a role on industry funding in shaping the development of PRP injection literature. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between industry funding and academic influence in PRP injection research. METHODS: A systematic review was done of PRP injection literature published between 2017 and 2024, all from Q1 (top quartile) peer-reviewed journals based on Scopus journal ranking metrics. Overall, 81 studies were included in final analysis. Authors were linked to the Open Payments Database (OPD) and were identified through their national provider identifier (NPI) number. A coauthorship network analysis was used to map patterns of collaboration among authors in the field. RESULTS: The majority of studies identified were randomized control trials (38.3%). From 2017 to 2024, total industry funding to PRP authors totaled $36.1 million. Markedly more general payments than research payments were there (P < 0.05). Funding did not markedly correlate with publication count (r = 0.368, P = 0.40). No notable association was found between funding type and study outcome for either general (P = 0.482) or research (P = 0.481) payments. A centralized structure of 621 unique authors revealed that the top 10% of contributors accounted for more than 40% of all betweenness activity among these authors. CONCLUSION: The majority of industry funding in PRP injection research is directed as general payments. A small cohort of authors hold disproportionate influence over the community.
26 Apr 2026
Read appraisal →