Current knowledge on leptospirosis in cats: A systematic review with metanalysis on direct detection, serological response, and clinical data.

Leptospirosis is a neglected bacterial zoonosis that affects a wide range of mammals, with important implications from a One Health perspective. Over the past years feline leptospirosis has gained increased attention in the scientific community. Here we describe a systematic review with meta-analysis that followed the PRISMA guidelines, with an additional PROSPERO registration. The study provides global seropositivity, urinary shedding rates, global serogroup distribution, descriptive data of leptospires that had been isolated from cats and clinical and laboratory features presented by symptomatic cats with acute disease. The search was carried out in six different databases, with the identification of 79 reports describing leptospiral infection in cats. The pooled frequency of seroreactive cats was 11% (95% CI: 9%-13%), with Javanica and Pomona as the most frequent serogroups found. Frequency for urinary shedding was 8% (95% CI: 5%-10%), with L. interrogans identified in most samples. A total of 16 isolates were isolated from cats, with Bataviae as the most frequent serogroup. Twenty symptomatic cats with confirmed leptospiral infection were identified. Anorexia, lethargy, polydipsia, and bleeding disorders were the clinical signs most frequently reported. The results suggest that cats from some locations are exposed to leptospires and may act as urinary shedders of this pathogen, thus indicating a possible role of this species in disease transmission. Clinical data indicates that acute infection is mostly atypical when compared to dogs, and due to difficulties to define an archetypal clinical presentation in cats, feline leptospirosis is likely to be underdiagnosed disease in this species.

Navigating the uncommon: challenges in applying evidence-based medicine to rare diseases and the prospects of artificial intelligence solutions.

The study of rare diseases has long been an area of challenge for medical researchers, with agonizingly slow movement towards improved understanding of pathophysiology and treatments compared with more common illnesses. The push towards evidence-based medicine (EBM), which prioritizes certain types of evidence over others, poses a particular issue when mapped onto rare diseases, which may not be feasibly investigated using the methodologies endorsed by EBM, due to a number of constraints. While other trial designs have been suggested to overcome these limitations (with varying success), perhaps the most recent and enthusiastically adopted is the application of artificial intelligence to rare disease data. This paper critically examines the pitfalls of EBM (and its trial design offshoots) as it pertains to rare diseases, exploring the current landscape of AI as a potential solution to these challenges. This discussion is also taken a step further, providing philosophical commentary on the weaknesses and dangers of AI algorithms applied to rare disease research. While not proposing a singular solution, this article does provide a thoughtful reminder that no 'one-size-fits-all' approach exists in the complex world of rare diseases. We must balance cautious optimism with critical evaluation of new research paradigms and technology, while at the same time not neglecting the ever-important aspect of patient values and preferences, which may be challenging to incorporate into computer-driven models.

Clinical Physician Assistant Students' Perceptions of Evidence-Based Medicine Resources: A Cross-Sectional Examination.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) instruction is required for physician assistant (PA) students. As a follow-up to an initial didactic year survey, this study seeks to understand which attributes of EBM resources clinical PA students find most and least useful, their self-efficacy utilizing medical literature, and their usage of EBM tools in the clinic. Results indicate that students preferred UpToDate and PubMed. PA students valued ease of use, which can inform instructors and librarians. Respondents utilized EBM tools daily or a few days a week, underscoring the importance of EBM tools in real-world scenarios. After their clinical year, students felt moderately confident utilizing the medical literature, emphasizing EBM training.

The fragility index in randomised controlled trials of interventions for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: A systematic review.

Background: Fragility analysis supplements the p-value and risk of bias assessment in the interpretation of results of randomised controlled trials. In this systematic review we determine the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) of randomised trials in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Methods: This is a systematic review registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020173604). Randomised controlled trials in adults with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed if they reported a statistically significant primary outcome of mortality, function (e.g. modified Rankin Scale), vasospasm or delayed neurological deterioration. Results: We identified 4825 records with 18 randomised trials selected for analysis. The median fragility index was 2.5 (inter-quartile range 0.25-5) and the median fragility quotient was 0.015 (IQR 0.02-0.039). Five of 20 trial outcomes (25%) had a fragility index of 0. In seven trials (39.0%), the number of participants lost to follow-up was greater than or equal to the fragility index. Only 16.7% of trials are at low risk of bias. Conclusion: Randomised controlled trial evidence supporting management of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage is weaker than indicated by conventional analysis using p-values alone. Increased use of fragility analysis by clinicians and researchers could improve the translation of evidence to practice.

A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Neuropathic Pain: From Pathophysiology to Surgical Treatment.

Neuropathic pain is a challenging condition. Despite the immense progress made in the pathophysiology and treatment of such conditions, so much work still has to be done. New frontiers previously unexplored are now objects of study with exciting results, mainly regarding neuromodulation and optogenetics. This review explores the already known pathophysiology and the clinical and surgical treatment in the light of evidence-based medicine. Additionally, new concepts and insights are discussed, presenting the hope for the development of new paradigms in the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Building the workforce of tomorrow: The weighting of rural exposure in standardised curriculum vitae scoring criteria for entrance into Australian specialty training programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the weighting of rural exposure within publicly available standardised curriculum vitae (CV) scoring criteria for trainee medical officer's applying into medical and surgical specialty training programs in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS/DESIGN: An observational analysis of rural exposure point allocations within publicly available standardised CV scoring criteria for entrance into specialty training programs. SETTING: All Australian and New Zealand medical and surgical specialties training programs outlined by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) who publish publicly available standardised CV scoring criteria for entrance into specialty training were included. RESULTS: Of the 14 specialty training programs that publish publicly available standardised CV scoring criteria, 8/14 allocate points towards rural exposure. While the allocation of points within this scoring domain varies between the eight training programs, the mean weighting of rural exposure is 13.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The relative weighting of rural exposure varies between the eight specialty training programs who include rural exposure as a CV scoring criteria. The deliberate and strategic construction of CV scoring criteria and inclusion of rural exposure points is important to continue developing the Australian rural specialist workforce. Future development of standardised CV scoring criteria should continue to consider point allocation towards rural exposure and related activities to ensure that the requirements of rural Australian healthcare needs are met across medical and surgical specialties.

Toward evidence-based communication on overweight body mass index and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Reducing overweight and obesity has been a longstanding focus of public health messaging and physician-patient interactions. Clinical guidelines by major public health organizations describe both overweight and obesity as risk factors for mortality and other health conditions. Accordingly, a majority of primary care physicians believe that overweight BMI (even without obesity) strongly increases mortality risk. MAIN POINTS: The current evidence base suggests that although both obese BMI and underweight BMI are consistently associated with increased all-cause mortality, overweight BMI (without obesity) is not meaningfully associated with increased mortality. In fact, a number of studies suggest modest protective, rather than detrimental, associations of overweight BMI with all-cause mortality. Given this current evidence base, clinical guidelines and physician perceptions substantially overstate all-cause mortality risks associated with the range of BMIs classified as "overweight" but not "obese." Discrepancies between evidence and communication regarding mortality raise the question of whether similar discrepancies exist for other health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Health communication that inaccurately conveys current evidence may do more harm than good; this applies to communication from health authorities to health practitioners as well as to communication from health practitioners to individual patients. We give three recommendations to better align health communication with the current evidence. First, recommendations to the public and health practitioners should distinguish overweight from obese BMI and at this time should not describe overweight BMI as a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Second, primary care physicians' widespread misconceptions about overweight BMI should be rectified. Third, the evidence basis for other potential risks or benefits of overweight BMI should be rigorously examined and incorporated appropriately into health communication.

Arthrocentesis versus occlusal coverage splints in the management of disc displacement without reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR) can cause pain and limitations in mouth opening, with a significant impact on function. The optimal management strategy for DDwoR is unclear. Treatments include conservative management such as mandibular manipulation, occlusal splints, and patient education/self-management, as well as arthrocentesis, which is a minimally invasive procedure. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to ascertain whether there is a role for arthrocentesis in the management of DDwoR. Studies analysing the outcomes pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO) in patients with DDwoR treated by arthrocentesis or occlusal coverage devices were eligible for inclusion. Following a database search, six studies with a total of 343 participants were found to be eligible for analysis (three prospective observational studies, one retrospective observational study, one non-randomized single-blind clinical trial, and one unblinded randomized clinical trial). When compared to occlusal coverage splints, arthrocentesis demonstrated a slight improvement in pain, although this was statistically non-significant (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to 0.05, P = 0.07; I2 = 81%), and a significant improvement in MMO (SMD 0.79 mm, 95% CI 0.24-1.35 mm, P = 0.005; I2 = 79%). However, due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and the high risk of bias, along with the paucity of double-blind randomized controlled clinical trials, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn for this clinical question.

The Use of Generative AI for Scientific Literature Searches for Systematic Reviews: ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI Performance Evaluation.

Background: A large language model is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) model that opens up great possibilities for health care practice, research, and education, although scholars have emphasized the need to proactively address the issue of unvalidated and inaccurate information regarding its use. One of the best-known large language models is ChatGPT (OpenAI). It is believed to be of great help to medical research, as it facilitates more efficient data set analysis, code generation, and literature review, allowing researchers to focus on experimental design as well as drug discovery and development. Objective: This study aims to explore the potential of ChatGPT as a real-time literature search tool for systematic reviews and clinical decision support systems, to enhance their efficiency and accuracy in health care settings. Methods: The search results of a published systematic review by human experts on the treatment of Peyronie disease were selected as a benchmark, and the literature search formula of the study was applied to ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing AI as a comparison to human researchers. Peyronie disease typically presents with discomfort, curvature, or deformity of the penis in association with palpable plaques and erectile dysfunction. To evaluate the quality of individual studies derived from AI answers, we created a structured rating system based on bibliographic information related to the publications. We classified its answers into 4 grades if the title existed: A, B, C, and F. No grade was given for a fake title or no answer. Results: From ChatGPT, 7 (0.5%) out of 1287 identified studies were directly relevant, whereas Bing AI resulted in 19 (40%) relevant studies out of 48, compared to the human benchmark of 24 studies. In the qualitative evaluation, ChatGPT had 7 grade A, 18 grade B, 167 grade C, and 211 grade F studies, and Bing AI had 19 grade A and 28 grade C studies. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare AI and conventional human systematic review methods as a real-time literature collection tool for evidence-based medicine. The results suggest that the use of ChatGPT as a tool for real-time evidence generation is not yet accurate and feasible. Therefore, researchers should be cautious about using such AI. The limitations of this study using the generative pre-trained transformer model are that the search for research topics was not diverse and that it did not prevent the hallucination of generative AI. However, this study will serve as a standard for future studies by providing an index to verify the reliability and consistency of generative AI from a user's point of view. If the reliability and consistency of AI literature search services are verified, then the use of these technologies will help medical research greatly.

Identifying primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The growth of medical knowledge and patient care complexity calls for improved clinician access to evidence-based resources. This study aimed to explore the primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore. METHODS: A convenience sample of ten doctors and ten nurses was recruited. We conducted semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 20 participants, eight doctors and ten nurses worked at government-funded polyclinics and two doctors worked in private practice. Most clinicians sought clinical information daily at the point-of-care. The most searched-for information by clinicians in practice was less common conditions. Clinicians preferred evidence-based resources such as clinical practice guidelines and UpToDate®. Clinical practice guidelines were mostly used when they were updated or based on memory. Clinicians also commonly sought answers from their peers. Furthermore, clinicians frequently use smartphones to access the Google search engine and UpToDate® app. The barriers to accessing clinical information included the lack of time, internet surfing separation of work computers, limited search functions in the organisation's server, and limited access to medical literature databases. The facilitators of accessing clinical information included convenience, easy access, and trustworthiness of information sources. CONCLUSION: Most primary care clinicians in our study sought clinical information at the point-of-care daily and reported increasing use of smartphones for information-seeking. Future research focusing on interventions to improve access to credible clinical information for primary care clinicians at the point-of-care is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been reviewed by NHG Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB) (the central ethics committee) for ethics approval. NHG DSRB Reference Number: 2018/01355 (31/07/2019).

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS: This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS: We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database: a collaborative hospital EHR database aligned with international common data standards.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the development and features of the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database (TMUCRD), a repository of real-world data (RWD) derived from electronic health records (EHRs) and other sources. METHODS: TMUCRD was developed by integrating EHRs from three affiliated hospitals, including Taipei Medical University Hospital, Wan-Fang Hospital and Shuang-Ho Hospital. The data cover over 15 years and include diverse patient care information. The database was converted to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) for standardisation. RESULTS: TMUCRD comprises 89 tables (eg, 29 tables for each hospital and 2 linked tables), including demographics, diagnoses, medications, procedures and measurements, among others. It encompasses data from more than 4.15 million patients with various medical records, spanning from the year 2004 to 2021. The dataset offers insights into disease prevalence, medication usage, laboratory tests and patient characteristics. DISCUSSION: TMUCRD stands out due to its unique advantages, including diverse data types, comprehensive patient information, linked mortality and cancer registry data, regular updates and a swift application process. Its compatibility with the OMOP CDM enhances its usability and interoperability. CONCLUSION: TMUCRD serves as a valuable resource for researchers and scholars interested in leveraging RWD for clinical research. Its availability and integration of diverse healthcare data contribute to a collaborative and data-driven approach to advancing medical knowledge and practice.

Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke.

BACKGROUND: In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit. MAIN TEXT: Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2023 Update on Clinical Guidelines for Management of Major Depressive Disorder in Adults: Réseau canadien pour les traitements de l'humeur et de l'anxiété (CANMAT) 2023 : Mise à jour des lignes directrices cliniques pour la prise en charge du trouble dépressif majeur chez les adultes.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) last published clinical guidelines for the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2016. Owing to advances in the field, an update was needed to incorporate new evidence and provide new and revised recommendations for the assessment and management of MDD in adults. METHODS: CANMAT convened a guidelines editorial group comprised of academic clinicians and patient partners. A systematic literature review was conducted, focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since the 2016 guidelines. Recommendations were organized by lines of treatment, which were informed by CANMAT-defined levels of evidence and supplemented by clinical support (consisting of expert consensus on safety, tolerability, and feasibility). Drafts were revised based on review by patient partners, expert peer review, and a defined expert consensus process. RESULTS: The updated guidelines comprise eight primary topics, in a question-and-answer format, that map a patient care journey from assessment to selection of evidence-based treatments, prevention of recurrence, and strategies for inadequate response. The guidelines adopt a personalized care approach that emphasizes shared decision-making that reflects the values, preferences, and treatment history of the patient with MDD. Tables provide new and updated recommendations for psychological, pharmacological, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine, digital health, and neuromodulation treatments. Caveats and limitations of the evidence are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The CANMAT 2023 updated guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for the management of MDD, in a clinician-friendly format. These updated guidelines emphasize a collaborative, personalized, and systematic management approach that will help optimize outcomes for adults with MDD.

High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable.

OBJECTIVE: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observed intervention effect estimates when new data become available. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a meta- epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same healthcare question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. METHODS: We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ROR (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance. RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n=29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95%CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; IQR: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78 to 0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations). CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.

Key factors in the choice of appropriate outcomes for clinical trials. / Factores clave en la elección de desenlaces apropiados para estudios clínicos.

Health research is the foundation of medical knowledge and healthcare system recommendations. Therefore, choosing appropriate outcomes in studies of therapeutic interventions is a fundamental step in producing evidence and, subsequently, for decision-making. In this article, we propose three key factors for the choice of outcomes: the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes, since they focus on the patient's perception of their health status and quality of life; the consideration of clinically relevant outcomes, which are direct measurements of the patient's health status and, therefore, will be decisive in decision-making; and the use of core outcome sets, a tool that standardizes the measurement and interpretation of outcomes, facilitating the production and synthesis of appropriate evidence for the evidence ecosystem. The correct choice of outcomes will help health decision-makers and clinicians deliver appropriate patient-centered care and optimize the use of resources in healthcare and clinical research.

La investigación en salud es la base del conocimiento médico y de las recomendaciones en los sistemas de salud. Por ello, la elección de desenlaces apropiados en estudios de intervenciones terapéuticas es un paso fundamental en la producción de evidencia y, posteriormente, para la toma de decisiones. En este artículo proponemos tres factores clave para la elección de desenlaces: la inclusión de desenlaces reportados por pacientes, ya que ponen el foco del efecto de la intervención en la percepción que tienen los propios pacientes de su estado de salud y calidad de vida; la consideración de desenlaces clínicamente relevantes, los cuales son mediciones directas del estado de salud del paciente y, por ende serán determinantes en la toma de decisiones; y la utilización de herramienta que estandariza y permite la homogeneización en la medición e interpretación de desenlaces, facilitando la producción y posterior síntesis de evidencia apropiada para el ecosistema de evidencia. La correcta elección de los desenlaces permitirá que la evidencia generada de estos estudios ayude a los tomadores de decisiones en salud y los profesionales clínicos a entregar cuidados apropiados centrados en el paciente y a optimizar el uso de recursos en salud e investigación clínica.