-
BMC Cancer Mar 2018Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making.... (Review)
Review
Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making. However, there is now an increase in the number of systematic reviews on the same topic, thereby necessitating a systematic review of previous systematic reviews. With a focus on cancer, the purpose of this article is to provide a practical, stepwise approach for systematically reviewing the literature and publishing the results. This starts with the registration of a protocol for a systematic review of previous systematic reviews and ends with the publication of an original or updated systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, in a peer-reviewed journal. Future directions as well as potential limitations of the approach are also discussed. It is hoped that the stepwise approach presented in this article will be helpful to both producers and consumers of cancer-related systematic reviews and will contribute to the ultimate goal of preventing and treating cancer.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Neoplasms; Peer Review, Research; Research Design
PubMed: 29499652
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022This paper aimed to provide a systematic review of relevant articles from the perspectives of literature distribution, research hotspots, and existing results to obtain...
OBJECTIVES
This paper aimed to provide a systematic review of relevant articles from the perspectives of literature distribution, research hotspots, and existing results to obtain the frontier directions in the field of disinformation.
METHODS
We analyzed disinformation publications published between 2002 and 2021 using bibliometric methods based on the Web of Science. There were 5666 papers analyzed using Derwent Data Analyzer (DDA).
RESULTS
The result shows that the USA was the most influential country in this area, while Ecker and Lewandowsky from the University of Western Australia published the largest volumes of papers. Keywords such as "social media", "COVID-19", and "vaccination" have gained immense popularity recently.
CONCLUSIONS
We summarized four themes that are of the biggest concern to scholars: group heterogeneity of misinformation in memory, disinformation mechanism in social media, public health related to COVID-19, and application of big data technology in the infodemic. The future agenda of disinformation is summarized from three aspects: the mechanism of disinformation, social media users, and the application of algorithms. This work can be a meaningful resource for researchers' study in the area of disinformation.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Disinformation; Algorithms; Australia; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 36554727
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416849 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Nov 2017While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the... (Review)
Review
While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of "living guidelines" realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28911999
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.009 -
Journal of the American Medical... Sep 2021Biomedical text summarization helps biomedical information seekers avoid information overload by reducing the length of a document while preserving the contents'...
OBJECTIVE
Biomedical text summarization helps biomedical information seekers avoid information overload by reducing the length of a document while preserving the contents' essence. Our systematic review investigates the most recent biomedical text summarization researches on biomedical literature and electronic health records by analyzing their techniques, areas of application, and evaluation methods. We identify gaps and propose potential directions for future research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review followed the PRISMA methodology and replicated the approaches adopted by the previous systematic review published on the same topic. We searched 4 databases (PubMed, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) from January 1, 2013 to April 8, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened title, abstract, and full-text for all retrieved articles. The conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. The data extraction of the included articles was in 5 dimensions: input, purpose, output, method, and evaluation.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight out of 7235 retrieved articles met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine systems used single-document biomedical research literature as their input, 17 systems were explicitly designed for clinical support, 47 systems generated extractive summaries, and 53 systems adopted hybrid methods combining computational linguistics, machine learning, and statistical approaches. As for the assessment, 51 studies conducted an intrinsic evaluation using predefined metrics.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study found that current biomedical text summarization systems have achieved good performance using hybrid methods. Studies on electronic health records summarization have been increasing compared to a previous survey. However, the majority of the works still focus on summarizing literature.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Electronic Health Records; Machine Learning; Publications
PubMed: 34338801
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocab143 -
PloS One 2023In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for vocal nodules, concerning qualitive overall efficacy and quantitative improvement on quality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for vocal nodules, concerning qualitive overall efficacy and quantitative improvement on quality of voice. Four English and four Chinese databases were searched up to December 10th, 2022. Risk of bias among the included trials were evaluated by the Cochrane ROB tool. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.4 Software, and trial sequential analyses were performed by TSA 0.9. Meta-influence analyses, subgroup-analyses, meta-regression, and evaluation of publication bias were performed for exploration of heterogeneity by Stata V.14. Quality of the results was accessed through the GRADE-pro GDT. Cluster analyses and correlation coefficient were performed by R 4.1.3. Finally, 15 trials involving 1,888 participants were included. Results showed that compared with western medicine alone or Chinese herbal medicine alone, acupuncture alone yielded significantly (p<0.05) higher clinical effective rate and more improvement on scores of voice analyses. However, reduction on scores of grade, roughness, and breathiness and voice handicap index during follow-ups, and results of clinical effective rate suggested that acupuncture was inferior to voice training. In addition, meta-regression and sub-group analyses firstly revealed advanced efficacies of acupuncture when performed with local and remote acupoints, compared with local acupoints only. Acupuncture specified adverse event was denied in six trials while it was not mentioned in other nine trials. Results of cluster analyses and correlation coefficient showed that Kai yin yi hao and He gu (LI-4) were the most frequently applied matching-acupoints in trials. In conclusion, compared with western medicine (level of evidence: low ⨁⨁◯◯, GRADE C) and Chinese herbal medicine (level of evidence: moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯, GRADE B), acupuncture is safe and of better efficacy for patients with vocal nodules, while there is also need for RCTs with improvements on designing and interventions in experimental and controls.
Topics: Male; Humans; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Acupuncture Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Acupuncture Points; Publication Bias
PubMed: 37922255
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288252 -
Nature Communications Feb 2021The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was...
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.
Topics: Animals; COVID-19; Clinical Studies as Topic; Data Accuracy; Humans; Pandemics; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Research Design; Time Factors
PubMed: 33574258
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 -
Systematic Reviews Jun 2015Automation of the parts of systematic review process, specifically the data extraction step, may be an important strategy to reduce the time necessary to complete a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Automation of the parts of systematic review process, specifically the data extraction step, may be an important strategy to reduce the time necessary to complete a systematic review. However, the state of the science of automatically extracting data elements from full texts has not been well described. This paper performs a systematic review of published and unpublished methods to automate data extraction for systematic reviews.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, IEEEXplore, and ACM Digital Library to identify potentially relevant articles. We included reports that met the following criteria: 1) methods or results section described what entities were or need to be extracted, and 2) at least one entity was automatically extracted with evaluation results that were presented for that entity. We also reviewed the citations from included reports.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 1190 unique citations that met our search criteria, we found 26 published reports describing automatic extraction of at least one of more than 52 potential data elements used in systematic reviews. For 25 (48 %) of the data elements used in systematic reviews, there were attempts from various researchers to extract information automatically from the publication text. Out of these, 14 (27 %) data elements were completely extracted, but the highest number of data elements extracted automatically by a single study was 7. Most of the data elements were extracted with F-scores (a mean of sensitivity and positive predictive value) of over 70 %.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no unified information extraction framework tailored to the systematic review process, and published reports focused on a limited (1-7) number of data elements. Biomedical natural language processing techniques have not been fully utilized to fully or even partially automate the data extraction step of systematic reviews.
Topics: Data Mining; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Publishing; Research Report; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26073888
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2016The previously reported association between hypertension and prostate cancer risk was controversial. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The previously reported association between hypertension and prostate cancer risk was controversial. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies to summarize evidence on this association. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of Science and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases through January 2016. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 21 published studies were included in this meta-analysis. A significant increase in the risk of prostate cancer (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, P = 0.014) was observed among individuals with hypertension. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies (P < 0.001 for heterogeneity, I(2) = 72.1%). No obvious evidence of significant publication bias was detected by either Begg's test (P = 0.174) or Egger's test (P = 0.277). In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. Considering the substantial heterogeneity and residual confounding among included studies, further large-scale, well-designed prospective cohorts, as well as mechanistic studies, are urgently needed to confirm our preliminary findings.
Topics: Databases, Factual; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Publication Bias; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27511796
DOI: 10.1038/srep31358 -
The British Journal of Radiology Jun 2016Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).
METHODS
Three electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE(®), Ovid EMBASE(®) and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify systematic reviews addressing SRS interventions, with the last search performed in October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of included systematic reviews were conducted. The search strategies of the included systematic reviews were assessed using a standardized nine-question form based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the important predictors of search quality.
RESULTS
A total of 85 systematic reviews were included. The median quality score of search strategies was 2 (interquartile range = 2). Whilst 89% of systematic reviews reported the use of search terms, only 14% of systematic reviews reported searching the grey literature. Multiple linear regression analyses identified publication year (continuous variable), meta-analysis performance and journal impact factor (continuous variable) as predictors of higher mean quality scores.
CONCLUSION
This study identified the urgent need to improve the quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of SRS.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
This study is the first to address how authors performed searches to select clinical studies for inclusion in their systematic reviews. Comprehensive and well-implemented search strategies are pivotal to reduce the chance of publication bias and consequently generate more reliable systematic review findings.
Topics: Guideline Adherence; Guidelines as Topic; Peer Review, Research; Publication Bias; Radiosurgery; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26986458
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150878 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Dec 2022The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the...
BACKGROUND
The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the introduction of a new technology known as digital biomarkers.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker-based interventions.
METHODS
This study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline for reporting systematic reviews, including original English publications of systematic reviews reporting meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker-based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers. Imaging or other technologies that do not measure objective physiological or behavioral data were excluded from this study. A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to 2019-2020. The quality of the methodology and evidence synthesis of the meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), respectively. This study was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.
RESULTS
A total of 25 studies with 91 reported outcomes were included in the final analysis; 1 (4%), 1 (4%), and 23 (92%) studies had high, low, and critically low methodologic quality, respectively. As many as 6 clinical outcomes (7%) had high-quality evidence and 80 outcomes (88%) had moderate-quality evidence; 5 outcomes (5%) were rated with a low level of certainty, mainly due to risk of bias (85/91, 93%), inconsistency (27/91, 30%), and imprecision (27/91, 30%). There is high-quality evidence of improvements in mortality, transplant risk, cardiac arrhythmia detection, and stroke incidence with cardiac devices, albeit with low reporting quality. High-quality reviews of pedometers reported moderate-quality evidence, including effects on physical activity and BMI. No reports with high-quality evidence and high methodological quality were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Researchers in this field should consider the AMSTAR-2 criteria and GRADE to produce high-quality studies in the future. In addition, patients, clinicians, and policymakers are advised to consider the results of this study before making clinical decisions regarding digital biomarkers to be informed of the degree of certainty of the various interventions investigated in this study. The results of this study should be considered with its limitations, such as the narrow time frame.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/28204.
Topics: Humans; Bias; Hungary; Technology; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36542427
DOI: 10.2196/41042