A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Noise Annoyance as a Determinant of Physiological Changes Linked to Disease Promotion.

This systematic review investigates the certainty of evidence (CoE) regarding noise annoyance as a determinant of biological changes known to contribute to disease development. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL for English-language comparative studies conducted on humans of any age from 1 January 1940, to 28 August 2023. Further, studies that provided quantitative data on the relationship between noise annoyance and biomarkers of interest were included. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the odds ratios of noise annoyance on biomarkers and biological conditions considered to be risk factors for developing health effects. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias of Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) instrument. The CoE for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search identified 23 primary studies reporting on relevant biomarkers. Although some studies and pooled estimates suggest a possible association between noise annoyance and biological measures, the CoE overall is very low due to concerns with the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision in the estimates of effects. In the context of environmental impact assessment, where guidelines aim to mitigate the prevalence of populations experiencing a high level of noise annoyance, our results suggest that such practices should be grounded in the understanding that annoyance is health-relevant because it reflects an undesirable reaction to noise, rather than a precursor to chronic physical health conditions.

Adapting Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: Blood Pressure Management and Kidney Replacement Therapy in Adults and Children in the Saudi Arabian Context Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-ADOLOPMENT Methodology.

This practice guideline was developed by the chronic kidney disease (CKD) Task Force, which was composed of clinical and methodological experts. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health and its health holding company commissioned this guideline project to support the realization of Vision 2030's health-care transformation pillar. The synthesis of these guidelines was guided by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)- ADOLOPMENT methodology. The final guidelines addressed 12 clinical questions on the management of blood pressure in patients with CKD through a set of recommen-dations and performance measures. The recom-mendations included antihypertensive agents in children; renin- angiotensin system inhibition (RASi) versus non-RASi in adults; intensive versus standard blood pressure targets; early versus late assessment for kidney replacement therapy (KRT); late versus early preparation strategies for KRT; CKD symptoms during assessment for KRT or conservative manage-ment; initiation of KRT in patients with deteriorating CKD; choice of KRT modality or conservative management in certain CKD patient groups; changing or discontinuing KRT modalities; the frequency of reviews for KRT or conservative management; and information, education, and support. These conditional recommendations were based on a low to very low certainty of evidence, which highlights the need for high-quality randomized trials com-paring different antihypertensive agents in patients with CKD.

Systematic reviews and tech mining: A methodological comparison with case study.

When the Medical Library Association identified questions critical for the future of the profession, it assigned groups to use systematic reviews to find the answers to these questions. Group 6, whose question was on emerging technologies, recognized early on that the systematic review process would not work well for this question, which looks forward to predict future trends, whereas the systematic review process looks back in time. We searched for new methodologies that were more appropriate to our question, developing a process that combined systematic review, text mining, and visualization techniques. We then discovered tech mining, which is very similar to the process we had created. In this paper, we describe our research design and compare tech mining and systematic review methodologies. There are similarities and differences in each process: Both use a defined research question, deliberate database selection, careful and iterative search strategy development, broad data collection, and thoughtful data analysis. However, the focus of the research differs significantly, with systematic reviews looking to the past and tech mining mainly to the future. Our comparison demonstrates that each process can be enhanced from a purposeful consideration of the procedures of the other. Tech mining would benefit from the inclusion of a librarian on their research team and a greater attention to standards and collaboration in the research project. Systematic reviews would gain from the use of tech mining tools to enrich their data analysis and corporate management communication techniques to promote the adoption of their findings.

Rethinking the core list of journals for libraries that serve schools and colleges of pharmacy.

The Core List of Journals for Libraries that Serve Schools and Colleges of Pharmacy is a guide for developing and maintaining pharmacy-affiliated library collections. A work group was created to update the list and design a process for updating that will streamline future revisions. Work group members searched the National Library of Medicine catalog for an initial list of journals and then applied inclusion criteria to narrow the list. The work group finalized the fifth edition of the list with 225 diverse publications and produced a sustainable set of criteria for journal inclusion, providing a structured, objective process for future updates.