Preventive Medicine

Protocol for a living RCT review of tools to communicate study results to participants

This is a living systematic review protocol to compare communication tools for returning research results to participants and those with lived experience. Eligible randomized trials will compare plain-language summaries, infographics, videos, newsletters, and similar tools versus other formats or standard scientific reports. Primary outcomes are satisfaction, understanding, and ease of use, with monthly automated searches and planned meta-analysis if comparable RCTs exist. This paper is protocol-only and does not provide efficacy data; it outlines methods to produce future actionable guidance. 1

Pediatric pressure-injury prediction models lack validity and applicability

This systematic review identified 12 pediatric pressure-injury prediction models from nine studies for hospitalized children. Models showed acceptable discrimination (AUC range 0.612–0.978, seven >0.75) but calibration and clinical utility were poorly reported. All models were rated high risk of bias with major applicability concerns and frequent methodological flaws. Current models are not ready for widespread clinical deployment without external validation and improved reporting. 2

ARDS prevention: iatrogenic harms reduced, noniatrogenic disease remains heterogeneous

Iatrogenic ARDS has declined with policies reducing transfusion-related lung injury and adoption of lung-protective ventilation and bundles. Noniatrogenic ARDS represents heterogeneous host-pathogen phenotypes that resist one-size-fits-all pharmacologic prevention. Trials in unselected populations have been disappointing, arguing for phenotype-targeted prevention strategies. Broader reduction in ARDS mortality will require precision approaches and systematic implementation across care settings. 3