Evaluation of quality and quantity of randomized controlled trials in hepatobiliary surgery: A scoping/mapping review.

AIM: To evaluate the quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hepatobiliary surgery and for identifying gaps in current evidences. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) for RCTs of hepatobiliary surgery published from inception until the end of 2023. The quality of each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool. The associations between risk of bias and the region and publication date were also assessed. Evidence mapping was performed to identify research gaps in the field. RESULTS: The study included 1187 records. The number and proportion of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hepatobiliary surgery increased over time, from 13 RCTs (.0005% of publications) in 1970-1979 to 201 RCTs (.003% of publications) in 2020-2023. There was a significant increase in the number of studies with a low risk of bias in RoB domains (p < .01). The proportion of RCTs with low risk of bias improved significantly after the introduction of CONSORT guidelines (p < .001). The evidence mapping revealed a significant research focus on major and minor hepatectomy and cholecystectomy. However, gaps were identified in liver cyst surgery and hepatobiliary vascular surgery. Additionally, there are gaps in the field of perioperative management and nutrition intervention. CONCLUSION: The quantity and quality of RCTs in hepatobiliary surgery have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement. We have identified gaps in current research that can be addressed in future studies.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

crossnma: An R package to synthesize cross-design evidence and cross-format data using network meta-analysis and network meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Although aggregate data (AD) from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are used in the majority of network meta-analyses (NMAs), other study designs (e.g., cohort studies and other non-randomised studies, NRS) can be informative about relative treatment effects. The individual participant data (IPD) of the study, when available, are preferred to AD for adjusting for important participant characteristics and to better handle heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network. RESULTS: We developed the R package crossnma to perform cross-format (IPD and AD) and cross-design (RCT and NRS) NMA and network meta-regression (NMR). The models are implemented as Bayesian three-level hierarchical models using Just Another Gibbs Sampler (JAGS) software within the R environment. The R package crossnma includes functions to automatically create the JAGS model, reformat the data (based on user input), assess convergence and summarize the results. We demonstrate the workflow within crossnma by using a network of six trials comparing four treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The R package crossnma enables the user to perform NMA and NMR with different data types in a Bayesian framework and facilitates the inclusion of all types of evidence recognising differences in risk of bias.

Diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the diagnostic accuracy of cognitive screening tools validated for older adults in Iran, providing evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and researchers. METHODS: A comprehensive search in March 2023 across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, SID, IranMedex, and IranDoc, enhanced by hand-searching references and Google Scholar, identified cross-sectional studies on cognitive screening in Iranian seniors. We assessed diagnostic accuracy, cognitive domains, and test strengths and weaknesses. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis provided summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals, illustrated in forest plots. RESULTS: Our review, derived from an initial screening of 38 articles, focused on 17 studies involving 14 cognitive screening tools and participant counts from 60 to 350, mostly from specialized clinics. The MMSE was the only tool examined in at least three studies, prompting a meta-analysis revealing its sensitivity at 0.89 and specificity at 0.77 for dementia detection, albeit amidst significant heterogeneity (I^2 > 80%). ACE-III demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for MCI and dementia, while MoCA's performance was deemed adequate for MCI and excellent for dementia. High bias risk in studies limits interpretation. CONCLUSION: This review identifies key cognitive tools for dementia and MCI in Iranian older adults, tailored to educational levels for use in primary and specialized care. It emphasizes the need for further validation to enhance diagnostic precision across diverse settings, within a concise framework prioritizing brevity and accuracy for clinical applicability.

DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents' device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although physical activity (PA) is associated with significant health benefits, only a small percentage of adolescents meet recommended PA levels. This systematic review with meta-analysis explored the modifiable determinants of adolescents' device-based PA and/or sedentary behaviour (SB), evaluated in previous interventions and examined the associations between PA/SB and these determinants in settings. METHODS: A search was conducted on five electronic databases, including papers published from January 2010 to July 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) or Controlled Trials (CTs) measuring adolescents' device-based PA/SB and their modifiable determinants at least at two time points: pre- and post-intervention were considered eligible. PA/SB and determinants were the main outcomes. Modifiable determinants were classified after data extraction adopting the social-ecological perspective. Robust Bayesian meta-analyses (RoBMA) were performed per each study setting. Outcomes identified in only one study were presented narratively. The risk of bias for each study and the certainty of the evidence for each meta-analysis were evaluated. The publication bias was also checked. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282874. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (eight in school, three in school and family, and one in the family setting) and one CT (in the school setting) were included. Fifty-four modifiable determinants were identified and were combined into 33 broader determinants (21 individual-psychological, four individual-behavioural, seven interpersonal, and one institutional). RoBMAs revealed none or negligible pooled intervention effects on PA/SB or determinants in all settings. The certainty of the evidence of the impact of interventions on outcomes ranged from very low to low. Narratively, intervention effects in favour of the experimental group were detected in school setting for the determinants: knowledge of the environment for practicing PA, d = 1.84, 95%CI (1.48, 2.20), behaviour change techniques, d = 0.90, 95%CI (0.09, 1.70), choice provided, d = 0.70, 95%CI (0.36, 1.03), but no corresponding effects on PA or SB were found. CONCLUSIONS: Weak to minimal evidence regarding the associations between the identified modifiable determinants and adolescents' device-based PA/SB in settings were found, probably due to intervention ineffectiveness. Well-designed and well-implemented multicomponent interventions should further explore the variety of modifiable determinants of adolescents' PA/SB, including policy and environmental variables.

Salivary Biomarkers and Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The present review aimed to investigate the association between salivary biomarkers and temporomandibular disorders (TMD). TMD is a multifactorial condition characterised by pain and dysfunction in the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and surrounding structures. Salivary biomarkers have emerged as potential diagnostic tools due to their non-invasiveness and easy accessibility. However, the literature on salivary biomarkers in relation to TMD is limited and inconsistent. METHODS: Electronic databases of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Medline were searched using specific search terms and Boolean operators. The search was limited to articles published in English that assessed salivary biomarkers in individuals diagnosed with TMD. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted data. ROB-2 was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Eleven clinical papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The findings provided consistent evidence of a clear association between salivary biomarkers and TMD. Various biomarkers, including cortisol, IL-1, glutamate and several others, were assessed. Some studies reported higher levels of cortisol and IL-1 in TMD patients, indicating potential involvement in stress and inflammation. Glutamate levels were found to be elevated, suggesting a role in pain modulation. Other biomarkers also showed alterations in TMD patients compared to controls: CONCLUSION: The findings from the included studies suggest that salivary biomarkers may play a role in TMD pathophysiology. Though a definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the specific salivary biomarkers and their association with TMD, the results must be interpreted with caution considering the heterogeneity of the biomarkers assessed. Further research with larger sample sizes, standardised methodology and rigorous study designs is needed to elucidate the role of salivary biomarkers in TMD.

Modulation of mind wandering using transcranial direct current stimulation: A meta-analysis based on electric field modeling.

Mind wandering (MW) is a heterogeneous construct involving task-unrelated thoughts. Recently, the interest in modulating MW propensity via non-invasive brain stimulation techniques has increased. Single-session transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in healthy controls has led to mixed results in modulating MW propensity, possibly due to methodological heterogeneity. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a systematic meta-analysis to examine the influence of left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) and right inferior parietal lobule (rIPL) targeted tDCS on MW propensity. Importantly, by computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields, we accounted for differences in tDCS-dose across studies that varied strongly in their applied methodology. Fifteen single-session, sham-controlled tDCS studies published until October 2021 were included. All studies involved healthy adult participants and used cognitive tasks combined with MW thought-probes. Heterogeneity in tDCS electrode placement, stimulation polarity and intensity were controlled for by means of electric field simulations, while overall methodological quality was assessed via an extended risk of bias (RoB) assessment. We found that RoB was the strongest predictor of study outcomes. Moreover, the rIPL was the most promising cortical area for influencing MW, with stronger anodal electric fields in this region being negatively associated with MW propensity. Electric field strength in the lDLPFC was not related to MW propensity. We identified several severe methodological problems that could have contributed to overestimated effect sizes in this literature, an issue that needs urgent attention in future research in this area. Overall, there is no reliable evidence for tDCS influencing MW in the healthy. However, the analysis also revealed that increasing neural excitability in the rIPL via tDCS might be associated with reduced MW propensity. In an exploratory approach, we also found some indication that targeting prefrontal regions outside the lDLPFC with tDCS could lead to increased MW propensity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery as a therapeutic option for patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To compare different types of metabolic surgery with non-surgical therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The present network meta-analysis (NMA) includes randomized clinical trials (duration ≥ 52 weeks) comparing different surgery techniques with non-surgical therapy in diabetes patients. The primary endpoints were endpoint HbA1c, body mass index (BMI) and diabetes remission. The secondary endpoints included fasting plasma glucose, lipid profile, blood pressure, arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemia remission, quality of life and surgical adverse events. Indirect comparisons of different types of surgery were performed by NMA. Mean and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables, and the Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio for categorial variables, were calculated. RESULTS: The types of surgical procedure included laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), bilio-pancreatic diversion (BPD), greater curvature plication (GCP), one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Duodeno-Jejunal bypass. Thirty-six trials were included. Metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) was associated with a significantly higher reduction of HbA1c, diabetes remission and BMI compared with medical therapy. In the NMA, a significant reduction of HbA1c was observed with OAGB and SG. Complete diabetes remission significantly increased with all surgical procedures in comparison with non-surgical therapy, except for GCP. In addition, only BPD, RYGB and OAGB were associated with a significant reduction of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: MBS is an effective option for the treatment of T2D in patients with obesity. Further long-term trials of appropriate quality are needed for assessing the risk-benefit ratio in some patient cohorts, such as those with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 and aged older than 65 years.

The relationship of publication language, study population, risk of bias, and treatment effects in acupuncture related systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND: There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population. RESULTS: We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZ6XR ).

Clinical systematic reviews - a brief overview.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews answer research questions through a defined methodology. It is a complex task and multiple articles need to be referred to acquire wide range of required knowledge to conduct a systematic review. The aim of this article is to bring the process into a single paper. METHOD: The statistical concepts and sequence of steps to conduct a systematic review or a meta-analysis are examined by authors. RESULTS: The process of conducting a clinical systematic review is described in seven manageable steps in this article. Each step is explained with examples to understand the method evidently. CONCLUSION: A complex process of conducting a systematic review is presented simply in a single article.

Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention.

BACKGROUND: Only rigorously prepared analyses can provide the highest level of evidence to inform decision-making. Several recent systematic reviews (SRs) examined the hypothesis that the early introduction of specific allergenic complementary foods (CFs) to infants may lead to a lower incidence of one or more allergic outcomes. However, the methodological rigour and quality of reporting of SRs in this area has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science Core Collection on 13th January 2022, using a pre-specified and tested search syntax for SRs with RCT evidence on the early introduction of allergenic CFs as a means for allergy prevention in infants and children. We examined the quality and risk of bias (RoB) using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, examined adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and checked whether certainty of the evidence was assessed. RESULTS: Twelve SRs were included. Application of both tools resulted in similar overall judgements in terms of direction and extent for nine of the 12 SRs. Nine SRs were found to be of critically low to low quality according to AMSTAR-2 and to be at high RoB according to ROBIS. One SR received a moderate quality rating (AMSTAR-2) and high RoB rating (ROBIS). However, for two SRs, judgements between AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS were at stark variance. Only two SRs fully adhered to the PRISMA checklist. Six SRs evaluated the certainty of the body of RCT evidence. Several SRs failed to consider unpublished studies either by an explicit a priori exclusion or by inadequate search strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Well-conducted SRs are important for decision-making and informing guideline development, the quality of their methodology should therefore be considered. The methodological rigour and the reporting quality of SRs on the timing of CF for allergy prevention must be improved. REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/7cs4b .

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

The effect and safety of probiotics on depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: With the escalating social pressures, there has been a continuous rise in the prevalence of depression among the population, leading to substantial healthcare burdens. Moreover, conventional pharmacological interventions still exhibit certain limitations. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of depression. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of probiotics in treating depressive symptoms were retrieved from Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wan Fang database, and CNKI between the establishment of the database and March 2022. The primary outcome was Beck's depression rating scale (BDI) scores, while the secondary outcomes were depression scores on the DASS-21 scale, biochemical indicators (IL-6, NO, and TNF-α levels), and adverse events. In addition, Revman 5.3 was used for Meta-analysis and quality evaluation, and Stata 17 was used for the Egger test and Begg's test. A total of 776 patients, including 397 and 379 patients in the experimental and control groups, respectively, were included. RESULTS: The total BDI score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group (MD = - 1.98, 95%CI - 3.14 to - 0.82), and the score of DASS (MD = 0.90, 95%CI - 1.17 to 2.98), the IL-6 level (SMD = - 0.55, 95%CI - 0.88 to - 0.23), the NO level (MD = 5.27, 95% CI 2.51 to 8.03), and the TNF-α level (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI - 0.25 to 0.63). CONCLUSION: The findings substantiate the therapeutic potential of probiotics in mitigating depressive symptoms by significantly reducing Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI) scores and alleviating the overall manifestation of depression.

Reporting and risk of bias of prediction models based on machine learning methods in preterm birth: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There was limited evidence on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of prediction models using machine learning methods in preterm birth. This systematic review aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of a machine learning-based prediction model in preterm birth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disk, VIP Database, and WanFang Data from inception to September 27, 2021. Studies that developed (validated) a prediction model using machine learning methods in preterm birth were included. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement and Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the reporting quality and the risk of bias of included studies, respectively. Findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and visual plots. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD 42022301623). RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 development-only studies and 5 development-with-validation studies. Overall, TRIPOD adherence per study ranged from 17% to 79%, with a median adherence of 49%. The reporting of title, abstract, blinding of predictors, sample size justification, explanation of model, and model performance were mostly poor, with TRIPOD adherence ranging from 4% to 17%. For all included studies, 79% had a high overall risk of bias, and 21% had an unclear overall risk of bias. The analysis domain was most commonly rated as high risk of bias in included studies, mainly as a result of small effective sample size, selection of predictors based on univariable analysis, and lack of calibration evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting and methodological quality of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth were poor. It is urgent to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of such studies to boost the application of machine learning-based prediction models in preterm birth in clinical practice.

Improving parenting, child attachment, and externalizing behaviors: Meta-analysis of the first 25 randomized controlled trials on the effects of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline.

Improving parenting, child attachment, and externalizing behaviors: Meta-analysis of the first 25 randomized controlled trials on the effects of Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline (VIPP-SD). VIPP-SD combines support of parental sensitive responsiveness with coaching parents in sensitive limit setting. Here, we present meta-analyses of 25 RCTs conducted with more than 2,000 parents and caregivers. Parents or children had various risks. We examined its effectiveness in promoting parental cognitions and behavior regarding sensitive parenting and limit setting, in promoting secure child-parent attachment, and reducing externalizing child behavior. Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, and recent reviews were searched for relevant trials (until May 10, 2021). Multilevel meta-analysis with META, METAFOR, and DMETAR in R took account of the 3-level structure of the datasets (studies, participants, measures). The meta-analyses showed substantial combined effect sizes for parenting behavior (r = .18) and attitudes (r = .16), and for child attachment security (r = .23), but not for child externalizing behavior (r = .07). In the subset of studies examining effects on both parenting and attachment, the association between effect sizes for parenting and for attachment amounted to r = .48. We consider the way in which VIPP-SD uses video-feedback an active intervention component. Whether VIPP-SD indeed stimulates secure attachment through enhanced positive parenting remains an outstanding question for further experimental study and individual participant data meta-analysis.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Is the quality of evidence in health technology assessment deteriorating over time? A case study on cancer drugs in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether there have been changes in the quality of clinical evidence submitted for government subsidy decisions on cancer medicines over the past 15 years. METHODS: We reviewed public summary documents (PSDs) reporting on subsidy decisions made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) from July 2005 to July 2020. Information was extracted on the study design, directness of comparison, sample size, and risk of bias (RoB). Changes in the quality of evidence were assessed using regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 214 PSDs were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven percent lacked direct comparative evidence. Thirteen percent presented observational or single-arm studies as the basis for decisions. Among PSDs presenting indirect comparisons, 78 percent reported transitivity issues. Nearly half (41 percent) of PSDs reporting on medicines supported by head-to-head studies noted there was a moderate/high/unclear RoB. PSDs reporting concerns with RoB increased by a third over the past 7 years, even after adjusting for disease rarity and trial data maturity (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.70). No time trends were observed regarding the directness of clinical evidence, study design, transitivity issues, or sample size during any of the analyzed periods. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the clinical evidence supplied to inform funding decisions for cancer medicines is often of poor quality and has been deteriorating over time. This is concerning as it introduces greater uncertainty in decision making. This is particularly important as the evidence supplied to the PBAC is often the same as that supplied to other global decision-making bodies.

Machine and Deep Learning for Tuberculosis Detection on Chest X-Rays: Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) was the leading infectious cause of mortality globally prior to COVID-19 and chest radiography has an important role in the detection, and subsequent diagnosis, of patients with this disease. The conventional experts reading has substantial within- and between-observer variability, indicating poor reliability of human readers. Substantial efforts have been made in utilizing various artificial intelligence-based algorithms to address the limitations of human reading of chest radiographs for diagnosing TB. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review (SLR) aims to assess the performance of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) in the detection of TB using chest radiography (chest x-ray [CXR]). METHODS: In conducting and reporting the SLR, we followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 309 records were identified from Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) databases. We independently screened, reviewed, and assessed all available records and included 47 studies that met the inclusion criteria in this SLR. We also performed the risk of bias assessment using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) and meta-analysis of 10 included studies that provided confusion matrix results. RESULTS: Various CXR data sets have been used in the included studies, with 2 of the most popular ones being Montgomery County (n=29) and Shenzhen (n=36) data sets. DL (n=34) was more commonly used than ML (n=7) in the included studies. Most studies used human radiologist's report as the reference standard. Support vector machine (n=5), k-nearest neighbors (n=3), and random forest (n=2) were the most popular ML approaches. Meanwhile, convolutional neural networks were the most commonly used DL techniques, with the 4 most popular applications being ResNet-50 (n=11), VGG-16 (n=8), VGG-19 (n=7), and AlexNet (n=6). Four performance metrics were popularly used, namely, accuracy (n=35), area under the curve (AUC; n=34), sensitivity (n=27), and specificity (n=23). In terms of the performance results, ML showed higher accuracy (mean ~93.71%) and sensitivity (mean ~92.55%), while on average DL models achieved better AUC (mean ~92.12%) and specificity (mean ~91.54%). Based on data from 10 studies that provided confusion matrix results, we estimated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ML and DL methods to be 0.9857 (95% CI 0.9477-1.00) and 0.9805 (95% CI 0.9255-1.00), respectively. From the risk of bias assessment, 17 studies were regarded as having unclear risks for the reference standard aspect and 6 studies were regarded as having unclear risks for the flow and timing aspect. Only 2 included studies had built applications based on the proposed solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this SLR confirm the high potential of both ML and DL for TB detection using CXR. Future studies need to pay a close attention on 2 aspects of risk of bias, namely, the reference standard and the flow and timing aspects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021277155; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=277155.

Use of simulation scenarios and vote cards in teaching critical appraisal concepts in evidence-based medicine.

BACKGROUND: The most effective method of teaching critical appraisal concepts remains unclear. We used simulation scenarios in a Risk-of-Bias (RoB) 2.0 framework to teach the various biases that may affect randomized controlled trials and assessed whether including this interactive session in an evidence-based medicine (EBM) course for third-year preclinical medical students can optimize their understanding of critical appraisal concepts. METHODS: The session had 13 modules, each corresponding to a particular risk of bias in RoB 2.0. Each module included a simulated scenario, followed by data presentation and a generalized conclusion. The students were subsequently asked to use colored vote cards to indicate whether they agreed, had some concern, or disagreed with the conclusion and to justify their answers. On the basis of the students' answers, the facilitator debriefed the scenario and addressed the specific bias. In each module, the students were required to demonstrate critical thinking in analyzing the claims and quality of the supporting evidence and in justifying their decisions, thus conceptualizing their understanding of research biases. RESULTS: We included 306 students across two pilot sessions in spring 2020 and 2021, and the response rate was 97.4%. The students were least able to discern the following problems: baseline imbalances when assessing allocation bias (correct answers: 9.06%), missing outcome data when assessing attrition bias (correct answers: 11.65%), and balanced nonprotocol interventions when assessing performance bias (correct answers: 14.88%). The postcourse survey revealed several aspects of the interactive session that the students appreciated or found challenging. CONCLUSION: Preclinical medical students generally appreciated the inclusion of simulation scenarios and vote cards in an EBM course. The use of vote cards facilitated medical students' understanding of critical appraisal concepts, uncovered areas that they found challenging to understand, and encouraged their active participation. Such interactive sessions should be increasingly included in medical education.