Methodological review to develop a list of bias items for adaptive clinical trials: Protocol and rationale.

Background: Randomized-clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold-standard for comparing health care interventions, but can be limited by early termination, feasibility issues, and prolonged time to trial reporting. Adaptive clinical trials (ACTs), which are defined by pre-planned modifications and analyses that occur after starting patient recruitment, are gaining popularity as they can streamline trial design and time to reporting. As adaptive methodologies continue to be adopted by researchers, it will be critical to develop a risk of bias tool that evaluates the unique methodological features of ACTs so that their quality can be improved and standardized for the future.

The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are used to inform clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decision making by synthesising the results of primary studies. Efficiently retrieving as many relevant SRs as possible is challenging with a minimum number of databases, as there is currently no guidance on how to do this optimally. In a previous study, we determined which individual databases contain the most SRs, and which combination of databases retrieved the most SRs.

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs.

A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020-2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries.

Objectives: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general.

Study Design And Setting: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met prespecified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions.

Only half of the authors of overviews of exercise-related interventions use some strategy to manage overlapping primary studies-a metaresearch study.

Objectives: The conduct of systematic reviews (SRs) and overviews share several similarities. However, because the unit of analysis for overviews is the SRs, there are some unique challenges. One of the most critical issues to manage when conducting an overview is the overlap of data across the primary studies included in the SRs.

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool).

Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide estimates of the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The aim of this study is to conduct a methodological review to compile a preliminary list of concepts related to bias in NMAs.

Methods And Analysis: We included papers that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, papers assessing the quality of NMAs, or method papers.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g.

Exercise and aerobic capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Background: A low level of cardiorespiratory fitness [CRF; defined as peak oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2peak) or peak power output (PPO)] is a widely reported consequence of spinal cord injury (SCI) and a major risk factor associated with chronic disease. However, CRF can be modified by exercise. This systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression aimed to assess whether certain SCI characteristics and/or specific exercise considerations are moderators of changes in CRF.

Tremor Induced by Cyclosporine, Tacrolimus, Sirolimus, or Everolimus: A Review of the Literature.

Calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus are immunosuppressant drugs that are known to induce tremors. Non-calcineurin inhibitors such as sirolimus and everolimus have also reportedly been accompanied by tremors, albeit less likely. However, the prevalence rates reported in the literature are notably wide, and the risk profiles for these drug-induced tremors are less understood.

Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions.

Background: Overviews (i.e., systematic reviews of systematic reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews) are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis.

Can routinely collected administrative data effectively be used to evaluate and validate endpoints used in breast cancer clinical trials? Protocol for a scoping review of the literature.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a critical component of evidence-based medicine and the evolution of patient care. However, the costs of conducting a RCT can be prohibitive. A promising approach toward reduction of costs and lessening of the burden of intensive and lengthy patient follow-up is the use of routinely collected healthcare data (RCHD), commonly called real-world data.

Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey.

Objective: Data extraction is a prerequisite for analyzing, summarizing, and interpreting evidence in systematic reviews. Yet guidance is limited, and little is known about current approaches. We surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction, opinions on methods, and research needs.

Does type of funding affect reporting in network meta-analysis? A scoping review of network meta-analyses.

Background: Evidence has shown that private industry-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses are more likely to report intervention-favourable results compared with other sources of funding. However, this has not been assessed in network meta-analyses (NMAs).

Objectives: To (a) explore the recommendation rate of industry-sponsored NMAs on their company's intervention, and (b) assess reporting in NMAs of pharmacologic interventions according to their funding type.

Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews: protocol for a systematic methodological review.

Introduction: One of the most conflicting methodological issues when conducting an overview is the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews (SRs). Overlap in the pooled effect estimates across SRs may lead to overly precise effect estimates in the overview. SRs that focus on exercise-related interventions are often included in overviews aimed at grouping and determining the effectiveness of various interventions for managing specific health conditions.

Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Background: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA).

Phenomenology and Physiology of Tacrolimus Induced Tremor.

Background: Tacrolimus is a potent immunosuppressant drug commonly used after solid organ transplant surgery. The use of this drug is frequently associated with the emergence of tremors. There is little information on the clinical and physiological characteristics of tacrolimus-induced tremors.

Use of existing systematic reviews for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations: Guidance from the SYSVAC expert panel.

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack.

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.

Introduction: The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple.

One-Third of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation Applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) System to Evaluate Certainty of Evidence: A Meta-Research Study.

Objective: To determine how many systematic reviews (SRs) of the literature in rehabilitation assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) and how many apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to do this.

Data Sources: For this meta-research study, we searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs on rehabilitation published in 2020.

Study Selection And Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently selected the SRs and extracted the data.

A review found heterogeneous approaches and insufficient reporting in overviews on adverse events.

Objectives: To investigate reporting and methodological characteristics of overviews on adverse (drug-associated) events (AEs) of pharmacological interventions.

Study Design And Setting: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to May 17, 2021 for overviews exclusively investigating AEs of pharmacological interventions. We extracted general, reporting, and methodological characteristics and analyzed data descriptively.

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool).

Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

Objective: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

Design: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

Participants: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice.