Mass gatherings are events where many people come together at a specific location for a specific purpose, such as concerts, sports events, or religious gatherings, within a certain period of time. In mass-gathering studies, many rates and ratios are used to assess the demand for medical resources. Understanding such metrics is crucial for effective planning and intervention efforts. Therefore, this systematic review aims to investigate the usage of rates and ratios reported in mass-gathering studies.

In this systematic review, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. Articles published through December 2023 were searched on Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and PubMed using the specified keywords. Subsequently, articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the study. Finally, the articles that were related to the study’s aim were evaluated.

Out of 745 articles screened, 55 were deemed relevant for inclusion in the study. These included 45 original research articles, three special reports, three case presentations, two brief reports, one short paper, and one field report. A total of 15 metrics were identified, which were subsequently classified into three categories: assessment of population density, assessment of in-event health services, and assessment of out-of-event health services.

The findings of this study revealed notable inconsistencies in the reporting of rates and ratios in mass-gathering studies. To address these inconsistencies and to standardize the information reported in mass-gathering studies, a Metrics and Essential Ratios for Gathering Events (MERGE) table was proposed. Future research should promote consistency in terminology and adopt standardized methods for presenting rates and ratios. This would not only enhance comparability but would also contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics associated with mass gatherings.

To review and synthesize studies on household food security in South Africa.

Systematic mapping review of metrics (methodological review).

Electronic databases, including EBSCOHost, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for studies and reports on household food security in South Africa, reporting household food security published between 1999 and 2021. Searching, selecting and reporting were performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement.

South African households

Forty-eight articles reporting on six national surveys (one repeated annually since 2002) and forty sub-national studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Various metrics, with different recall periods and ways of categorizing food security levels, were identified. Surveys that used similar metrics showed that the percentage of South African households that have experienced food insecurity and hunger has decreased over the review period yet remains concerning. However, the multitude of metrics used to assess the different components and levels of food security limits the comparability of the results to evaluate the scope and scale of the problem.

There is growing support for developing multi-variable approaches for food security research in sub-Saharan Africa. Future research should focus on finding the most appropriate combination of complementary metrics that would allow comparable data while holistically capturing food security and providing insight into the causes and consequences.

Clinical trials are a vital component of translational science, providing crucial information on the efficacy and safety of new interventions and forming the basis for regulatory approval and/or clinical adoption. At the same time, they are complex to design, conduct, monitor, and report successfully. Concerns over the last two decades about the quality of the design and the lack of completion and reporting of clinical trials, characterized as a lack of “informativeness,” highlighted by the experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to several initiatives to address the serious shortcomings of the United States clinical research enterprise.

Against this background, we detail the policies, procedures, and programs that we have developed in The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), supported by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program grant since 2006, to support the development, conduct, and reporting of informative clinical studies.

We have focused on building a data-driven infrastructure to both assist individual investigators and bring translational science to each element of the clinical investigation process, with the goal of both generating new knowledge and accelerating the uptake of that knowledge into practice.

In difficult-to-treat depression (DTD) the outcome metrics historically used to evaluate treatment effectiveness may be suboptimal. Metrics based on remission status and on single end-point (SEP) assessment may be problematic given infrequent symptom remission, temporal instability, and poor durability of benefit in DTD.

Self-report and clinician assessment of depression symptom severity were regularly obtained over a 2-year period in a chronic and highly treatment-resistant registry sample (N = 406) receiving treatment as usual, with or without vagus nerve stimulation. Twenty alternative metrics for characterizing symptomatic improvement were evaluated, contrasting SEP metrics with integrative (INT) metrics that aggregated information over time. Metrics were compared in effect size and discriminating power when contrasting groups that did (N = 153) and did not (N = 253) achieve a threshold level of improvement in end-point quality-of-life (QoL) scores, and in their association with continuous QoL scores.

Metrics based on remission status had smaller effect size and poorer discrimination of the binary QoL outcome and weaker associations with the continuous end-point QoL scores than metrics based on partial response or response. The metrics with the strongest performance characteristics were the SEP measure of percentage change in symptom severity and the INT metric quantifying the proportion of the observation period in partial response or better. Both metrics contributed independent variance when predicting end-point QoL scores.

Revision is needed in the metrics used to quantify symptomatic change in DTD with consideration of INT time-based measures as primary or secondary outcomes. Metrics based on remission status may not be useful.

Following inception in 2005 as a multiregional practice-based research network (PBRN), the “National Dental PBRN” expanded nationwide in 2012, and in 2019 implemented additional organizational changes. The objectives are to: (1) describe the new structure and function of the network; and (2) quantify its scientific productivity since 2005.

A national Administrative and Resource Center is based in Alabama; regional and specialty nodes are based in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Texas. A Network Coordinating Center is based in Oregon. Studies are funded via investigator-initiated grants. Scientific productivity is assessed using specific metrics, including the Relative Citation Ratio.

To date, 58 studies have been completed or are in data collection or development. These studies have investigated a broad range of topics using a wide variety of study designs. Of the studies that have completed enrollment, 70,665 patients were enrolled, as were 19,827 practitioners (some participated in multiple studies), plus electronic records for 790,493 patients in two data-only studies. To date, these studies have led to 193 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 62 different journals. The mean (1.40) Relative Citation Ratio of Network publications connotes a greater-than-average influence in their fields.

These metrics demonstrate that the PBRN research context can successfully engage practitioners and patients from diverse settings nationally with a high and sustained level of scientific productivity. This infrastructure has enabled clinical scientists in oral health and nonoral health topics and provided additional recruitment venues outside of the typical academic health center research context.

The Trial Innovation Network (TIN) is a collaborative initiative within the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. To improve and innovate the conduct of clinical trials, it is exploring the uses of gamification to better engage the trial workforce and improve the efficiencies of trial activities. The gamification structures described in this article are part of a TIN website gamification toolkit, available online to the clinical trial scientific community.

The game designers used existing electronic trial platforms to gamify the tasks required to meet trial start-up timelines to create friendly competitions. Key indicators and familiar metrics were mapped to scoreboards. Webinars were organized to share and applaud trial and game performance.

Game scores were significantly associated with an increase in achieving start-up milestones in activation, institutional review board (IRB) submission, and IRB approval times, indicating the probability of completing site activation faster by using games. Overall game enjoyment and feelings that the game did not apply too much pressure appeared to be an important moderator of performance in one trial but had little effect on performance in a second.

This retrospective examination of available data from gaming experiences may be a first-of-kind use in clinical trials. There are signals that gaming may accelerate performance and increase enjoyment during the start-up phase of a trial. Isolating the effect of gamification on trial outcomes will depend on a larger sampling from future trials, using well-defined, hypothesis-driven statistical analysis plans.