Citations

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Abstract Although Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are generally well tolerated and less toxic than chemotherapy alternatives used to treat lymphoid malignancies, BTKis like ibrutinib have the potential to cause new or worsening hypertension (HTN). Little is known about the optimal treatment of BTKi-associated HTN. Randomly selected patients with lymphoid malignancies on a BTKi and antihypertensive drug(s) and with at least 3 months of follow-up data were sorted into 2 groups: those diagnosed with HTN before BTKi initiation (prior-HTN), and those diagnosed with HTN after BTKi initiation (de novo HTN). Generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time varying mean arterial pressures (MAPs) and individual anti-HTN drug categories. Of 196 patients included in the study, 118 had prior-HTN, and 78 developed de novo HTN. Statistically significant mean MAP reductions were observed in patients with prior-HTN who took β blockers (BBs) with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), (−5.05 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0 to −0.0596; P = .047), and patients diagnosed with de novo HTN who took either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with HCTZ (−5.47 mmHg; 95% CI, 10.9 to −0.001; P = .05). These regimens also correlated with the greatest percentages of normotensive MAPs. Treatment of HTN in patients taking a BTKi is challenging and may require multiple antihypertensives. Patients with prior-HTN appear to benefit from combination regimens with BBs and HCTZ, whereas patients with de novo HTN appear to benefit from ACEi/ARBs with HCTZ. These results should be confirmed in prospective studies.