To develop and validate the Internalised Stigma Scale for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (ISS-GDM), a questionnaire measuring self-reported internalised stigma among women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We hypothesised that internalised GDM stigma could be reliably and validly assessed through a short psychometric instrument.

Cross-sectional validation study.

Follow-up data from the Danish, multicentre Face-it trial for women with prior GDM and their families.

In total, 248 women completed the ISS-GDM approximately 1 year after their GDM affected pregnancy.

The primary outcome was psychometric properties of the ISS-GDM, assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis (RA). Secondary outcomes included identification of item anomalies (local response dependence, differential item functioning).

A large proportion of respondents endorsed statements reflecting self-disappointment, self-blame and an altered self-perception. Less endorsed statements included feeling inferior to other mothers or guilt towards family members due to GDM. The ISS-GDM demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. CFA indicated that item 2 assessing self-perceived capabilities as a mother did not load onto the main factor, while CFA and RA identified local response dependence and differential item functioning by body mass index. After adjustments, a two-factor solution supported calculating a sum score of items 1 and 3–11, with item 2 retained as a stand-alone indicator of perceived parenting capabilities. The 10-item scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha=0.78).

The ISS-GDM is a reliable and valid tool for assessing internalised stigma among women with prior GDM. Our findings further suggest that a substantial proportion of women with prior GDM experience self-blame and an altered self-perception due to their diagnosis. The ISS-GDM scale enables research into its prevalence, severity and consequences.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended for prophylaxis against VTE after trauma but may increase the risk of progression of intracranial bleeding. Limited evidence exists to guide clinicians regarding the optimal timing of VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute TBI. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will directly compare the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed initiation of LMWH in patients with moderate to severe TBI.

The study design is a Bayesian adaptive RCT comparing early (within three calendar days of injury) versus delayed (after study Day 7) VTE prophylaxis with the LMWH, dalteparin. All patients receive sequential compression devices until study Day 8. The co-primary effectiveness outcome is the development of clinically important VTE at study Day 8. The co-primary safety outcome is the development of clinically important intracranial bleeding at study Day 8. Secondary outcomes are mortality and functional outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended and EQ-5D) measured at study Days 30 and 180; clinically diagnosed VTE to Day 30 and progression of intracranial bleeding to Day 8.

This study has been approved through Clinical Trials Ontario’s streamlined ethics review process (board of record, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre) and all participating centres. It is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guidelines and Health Canada regulatory requirements. We anticipate that the trial will achieve wide dissemination through publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal and presentation at international conferences targeting the fields of critical care, trauma and neurosurgery. The results of this trial will help guide clinicians aiming to balance the risks and benefits of early anticoagulant prophylaxis after TBI and will inform guideline development.

NCT03559114.

Cardiovascular diseases, overweight, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology to lower the risk of death and progression of cardiovascular disease in patients with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Semaglutide, tirzepatide and liraglutide are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight. CagriSema is currently not approved, but several phase III trials are ongoing.

No previous systematic review has investigated the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and liraglutide, which may not be disease-specific, on hard binary outcomes for all trial populations at increased risk of cardiovascular events.

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised trials. We expect to perform the literature search in December 2025. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will include randomised trials assessing the effects of semaglutide, tirzepatide, CagriSema and/or liraglutide in participants with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause hospitalisation. Data will be synthesised by aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses and network meta-analysis, risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool V. 2, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach.

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

CRD42024623312.

There is limited evidence regarding the outcomes and impacts of Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research, mainly based on narrative studies. Existing frameworks for supporting and evaluating PPI often require adaptation to specific contexts, and comprehensive instruments are needed. From an international perspective, strengthening the scientific foundation that underpins PPI is crucial to generate stronger evidence to understand which approaches work best, in which contexts, and with what effects.

To promote PPI implementation in German health research, this project aims to (1) Establish an evaluation framework, (2) Develop a modular evaluation tool in the form of a questionnaire and (3) Pilot and psychometrically validate the tool.

A three-phase mixed methods approach will be employed, integrating qualitative and quantitative data. First, we will explore with researchers, research partners and other stakeholders in health services research what contributes to meaningful and successful PPI through a web-based survey and focus groups. Findings are discussed in a codesign workshop in which participants agree on an evaluation framework based on a LOGIC model. Second, items from international instruments that evaluate PPI are deductively assigned to the evaluation framework. Further items are developed based on the focus groups from phase 1. Cognitive pretests and qualitative review will be conducted with researchers and patients in order to refine the item pool and develop the evaluation tool. Third, the evaluation tool with modules for researchers and patients will be piloted in a web-based survey. Data analysis will include thematic analysis for qualitative data and descriptive and psychometric analyses for quantitative data. A participatory research team will provide ongoing support throughout all project phases.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Local Ethics Committee of the Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (LPEK-0889). The study will follow the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and good scientific practice. Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences, public symposiums and in peer-reviewed journals, contributing to the internationally developing field of PPI in research and addressing relevant research gaps.

To increase the sustainability of healthcare, clinical trials must assess the environmental impact of interventions alongside clinical outcomes. This should be guided by Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions, which will be developed by The Implementing Climate and Environmental Outcomes in Trials Group. The objective of the scoping review is to describe the existing methods for reporting and measuring environmental outcomes in randomised trials. The results will be used to inform the future development of the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on environmental outcomes (SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE).

This protocol outlines the methodology for a scoping review, which will be conducted in two distinct sections: (1) identifying any existing guidelines, reviews or methodological studies describing environmental impacts of interventions and (2) identifying how environmental outcomes are reported in randomised trial protocols and trial results. A search specialist will search major medical databases, reference lists of trial publications and clinical trial registries to identify relevant publications. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by two review authors. Based on the results, a preliminary list of items for the SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed.

This study does not include any human participants, and ethics approval is not required according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings from the scoping review will be published in international peer-reviewed journals, and the findings will be used to inform the design of a Delphi survey of relevant stakeholders.

Registered with Open Science 28 of February 2025.

The WHO has declared climate change the defining public health challenge of the 21st century. Incorporating climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials is essential for enhancing healthcare treatments’ sustainability and safeguarding global health. To implement such outcomes, it is necessary to establish a framework for unbiased and transparent planning and reporting. We aim to develop extensions to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT 2025) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2025) statements by introducing guidelines for reporting climate and environmental outcomes.

This is a protocol for SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions on reporting climate and environmental outcomes in randomised trials termed SPIRIT-Implementing Climate and Environmental (ICE) and CONSORT-ICE. The development of the extensions will consist of five phases: phase 1—project launch, phase 2—review of the literature, phase 3—Delphi survey, phase 4—consensus meeting and phase 5—dissemination and implementation. The phases are expected to overlap. The SPIRIT-ICE and CONSORT-ICE extensions will be developed in parallel. The extensions will guide researchers on how and what to report when assessing climate and environmental outcomes.

The protocol was submitted to the Danish Research Ethics Committees, Denmark in June 2025. Ethics approval is expected in September 2025. The SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Distal radius fractures account for one-fifth of all fractures in the active elderly population and may cause chronic pain, loss of hand function and reduced work productivity, imposing a significant socioeconomic burden. Most are initially treated with closed reduction and casting, but 30% subsequently require surgery due to insufficient realignment. The current approaches for analgesia for closed reduction are suboptimal. A brachial plexus nerve block provides complete pain relief and muscle relaxation distal to the elbow, potentially creating better conditions for realignment of the fractured bone ends. This may ultimately translate into reduced need for surgery and result in better functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to a haematoma block, which is the current standard care in Denmark.

The BLOCK Trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, outcome assessor and analyst-blinded, superiority, randomised, controlled, clinical multicentre trial performed at 11 Danish emergency departments. Eligible adult patients with a distal radius fracture who need closed reduction will be included and allocated 1:1 to either an ultrasound-guided brachial plexus nerve block or a haematoma block. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with distal radius fracture surgery 90 days after closed reduction. We will include 1716 participants to detect or discard a relative risk reduction of surgery of 20%. Secondary outcomes include treatment-related complications, patient-reported wrist function, pain during closed reduction and proportion of patients with unacceptable radiographic fracture position immediately after closed reduction.

The trial is approved by the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Research Ethics Committees (EU CT number: 2024-512191-35-00). All results will be summarised on www.theblocktrial.com, clinicaltrials.gov and euclinicaltrials.eu after publication. Primary and secondary outcome results from 0 to 90 days will be presented in the main article and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Results from outcomes on the 12-month follow-up will be presented separately.

NCT06678438.

The SEV-IDF programme aims to track infants born before 33 weeks of gestation, with very low birth weight (VLBW), neonatal encephalopathy or severe birth anomalies and perinatal disease. It employs an open, prospective, multicentric, population-based cohort approach. This report aims to describe the methodology employed to establish and manage the programme, details regarding follow-up procedures, baseline characteristics of the included infants, and highlights new research opportunities emerging from the "Suivi des Enfants Vulnérables d'Ile-de-France" (SEV-IDF) programme.

The programme aims to (1) detect developmental anomalies early, (2) improve prevention using standardised data, (3) optimise follow-up care and (4) support multidisciplinary research.

Eligible participants are infants alive at discharge from the 59 maternities with a neonatal unit of the Île-de-France (IDF) region (France). A network of 567 trained physicians monitors the children’s development at 4 months, 1 and 2 years of corrected age, and 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 years of age. Collected data include sociodemographic, pregnancy and neonatal characteristics, and standardised child development scores.

The programme enrolled 21 175 participants between 2016 and 2023, with 16 461 (77.7%) having a gestational age less than 33 weeks, 1916 (9.0%) others having VLBW, 1525 (7.2%) having encephalopathy and 1273 (6.0%) having another severe birth anomaly.

The collected data will enable the SEV-IDF scientific committee to describe high-risk infants in the IDF region, design evidence-based campaigns to improve the quality and effectiveness of the follow-up as well as conduct research on developmental anomalies in these high-risk infants. Ongoing research currently focuses on anticipating loss to follow-up and early detection of developmental anomalies.