Systematic reviews (SRs) serve as a core methodology in evidence-based medicine (EBM), providing critical evidence for clinical practice and health decision-making. However, the manual screening of titles and abstracts in SRs is labor-intensive and time-consuming, becoming a major bottleneck in research efficiency. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), have introduced new opportunities and transformations in this field. This article provided an overview of the current status of intelligent screening for titles and abstracts in systematic reviews, with a focus on the application and effectiveness of LLMs. It aims to provide recommendations for users and developers, facilitating the better integration of automation algorithms into the SR process.
ObjectiveTo understand the current status of research methods in disease burden systematic reviews, identify limitations and shortcomings of existing research methods, and provide suggestions to address relevant issues. MethodsA computer search of the PubMed database was conducted to collect systematic reviews on disease burden, with search limits set from database inception to December 21, 2023. Two independent researchers utilized Endnote 20 for literature screening and Excel 2019 for data extraction and descriptive analysis. ResultsA total of 216 articles were included in the review, revealing a year-on-year increase in the number of systematic reviews on disease burden since 2004. The journal PharmacoEconomics published the most articles (n=22), while research on certain infectious diseases and parasitic infections was the most prevalent (n=51). Only 31 articles provided a complete account of the entire systematic review process. The reporting rates for inclusion/exclusion criteria, information retrieval, literature screening, and statistical analysis steps were all 100%. However, the rate of protocol registration was relatively low at 19%. Eighty-eight percent of the articles utilized software such as Excel and Epidata for data extraction, yet only 32% adhered to the reproducibility principles outlined in AMSTAR-2. In terms of quality assessment, 105 articles underwent evaluation, with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa scale being the most commonly used quality assessment tools for epidemiological studies, while economic studies preferred the Drummond checklist (n=9). Regarding the details of inclusion/exclusion criteria, only 53% of studies reported their study design in detail, and less than one-sixth provided a comprehensive description of the interventions and control measures. Statistical analyses predominantly employed qualitative methods (80%), with quantitative analyses comprising a minority (20%), all of which were conducted using meta-analysis techniques, primarily utilizing R software (n=15). ConclusionThe number of systematic reviews on disease burden has shown a yearly increasing trend; however, most studies have failed to comprehensively adhere to the fundamental processes of systematic reviews, significantly limiting their quality. Currently, the primary issues include a lack of protocol registration, incomplete supplementary searches, mismatched quality assessment tools, and insufficiently comprehensive outcome measures. To address these challenges, it is essential to develop a methodological guideline for systematic reviews on disease burden that incorporates these concerns. Such a guideline would standardize researchers' practices and ensure strict adherence to systematic review methodologies, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of the research and its support for clinical decision-making.
ObjectiveTo describe the current status of the evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews and develop the list of evaluation indexes. MethodsPubMed, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library (OVID), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for systematic reviews about the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards from inception to 28th April, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The frequency and ratio were used to describe the current status, while the qualitative synthesis was used to develop the list. ResultsA total of 133 systematic reviews were included. Sensitivity (133/133, 100.0%), specificity (131/133, 98.5%) and AUC (80/133, 60.2%) were used more frequently than 50%. Q index (6/133, 4.5%), false positive rate (3/133, 2.3%), Kappa value (2/133, 1.5%), false negative rate (1/133, 5%) and Youden's index were used less frequently than 5%. In order to evaluate the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews comprehensively, a total of 14 index related to validity and predictability could be considered. ConclusionThe evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents in systematic reviews are inconsistent and limited, so there is an urgent need to develop standardized evaluation indicators based on expert consensus.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of closed drainage and simply closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment spontaneous pneumothorax.
MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI from their inception to December 2nd, 2014, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of simple closed drainage versus closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.
ResultsA total of 5 RCTs including 499 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with the simple closed drainage, the closed drainage combined with pleurodesis was superior in the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=6.85, 95%CI 3.26 to 14.39, P<0.000 01) and the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.57, P<0.001). But there were no statistical differences in both groups in the effective rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=1.49, 95%CI 0.71 to 3.14, P=0.29), the hospital stays of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=0.08, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.31, P=0.52), the hospital stays of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-1.67, 95%CI -3.96 to 0.61, P=0.15), and the duration of drainage of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-0.11, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.58, P=0.76).
ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that closed drainage combined with pleurodesis could improve the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax and decrease the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Due to limited quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusion should be validated by more high quality studies.
Objective To investigate the current status of systematic reviews/meta-analyses published by pharmacists in hospital in China by using bibliometric analysis and assessing the methodological quality of these studies. Methods The literatures were searched from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016) from the establishment to March 17th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, the authors independently screened literature and extracted the data. Methodology quality and reporting quality were evaluated by using AMSTAR tool and PRIMSA statement. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 and SPSS 20.0 software. Results A total of 1 018 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included of which 871 were published in Chinese and 147 were in English. The published literature increased year by year, as well as the reporting quality and methodological quality. All of the included studies were published in 146 Chinese journals and 97 English journals. The authors were from 308 hospitals of 27 provinces. Drug effectiveness and drug safety were mainly assessed, and western medicine was the main category. Most of these studies were focused on anti-tummor drugs. Conclusion Evidenced-based drug evaluation by hospital pharmacists in China is rapidly increasing as well as the methodological quality and reporting quality, however, the development is unbalanced in China, and evidence-based medicine should be further promoted in the field of hospital pharmacy.
ObjectivesTo survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS EED (Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors (IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR.ResultsOne hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications (39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews (20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist (20.15%) and the Drummond checklist (19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
Grading the evidence of systematic reviews on animal studies will contribute to the improvement in the feasibility of transforming the results of animal studies into clinical trials or clinical practice. High quality evidence from animal studies is more likely to be successfully applied into clinical practice (i.e. more confident). Therefore, the present study will introduce the principles, methods and challenges of the application of GRADE in systematic reviews on animal studies.
Objective To make an individualized treatment plan for newly diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome by means of evidence-based medicine. Methods After clinical problems were put forward, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were collected from The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008) and PubMed (1990 to 2008). Treatment protocol was produced by combining the evidence and the values of the patient. Results A total of 114 RCTs and 21 systematic reviews were identified. A rational treatment plan was made upon a serious evaluation of the data to control symptoms and improve the quality of life for the patient. After a sixteen-month follow-up, the plan proved to be optimal. Conclusion The treatment efficacy in diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome has been improved by determining an individualized treatment plan according to evidence-based methods.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the method quality of systematic reviews/Meta analysis published in nursing journals.
MethodsWe retrieved Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese academic literature online publishing pool and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (the duration was from the beginning to August, 2013). The systematic reviews and Meta analysis published in nursing journals were included, and were evaluated by 10 items in OQAQ (Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire).
ResultsA total of 74 literatures were included in the analysis, including 17 systematic reviews and 57 Meta-analyses. It showed that the mean OQAQ score was 2.92±1.63. About 4.1%, 8.1%, 31.1%, 43.2%, 29.7%, 55.4%, 16.2%, 37.8%, and 60.8% studies stated literature research methods used to find evidence; had reasonably comprehensive search; avoided bias in the selection of studies by duplicate screening; reported the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies; concluded the findings by the data or analysis; provided a list of studies; assessed using appropriate criteria; reported the methods used to synthesis the findings; and combined the findings of the included studies appropriately.
ConclusionThe systematic reviews/Meta analysis of the overall quality in nursing field is low. The search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment and data analysis is particularly prominent, researchers should conduct rigorous methodological training.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of aspheric intraocular lenses(IOL) versus spherical IOL in the treatment of cataract. Method Randomized controlled trials comparing aspheric IOL with spherical IOL were identified by searching PubMed (2000 to October, 2008), EMbase (2000 to October, 2008), MEDLINE (2000 to October, 2008), and The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008). Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality, as well as the extracted data. Data were synthesized using RevMan software (release 5) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results A total of 14 trials (1383 eyes) were included for systematic review, and 11 out of 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used according to different aberrations of aspheric IOL. The results showed a significant difference in the mean best corrected visual acuity at 3 months after cataract surgery in the AcrySof IQ IOL group with WMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01(Plt;0.0001). It showed a significantly worse difference in the mean of the best corrected visual acuity at 3 months after cataract surgery in the AcrySof IQ IOL group with WMD –0.02, 95%CI –0.03 to –0.01 (Plt;0.000 1). It showed a significant worse in the mean the best corrected visual acuity in the Tecnis Z9000 IOL group with WMD 0.02, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.03 (P=0.002); and there was no significant difference between the two groups with WMD 0.00, 95%CI –0.02 to –0.03 (P=0.71). The results did display markedly less spherical aberration and total higher order aberrations than eyes implanted with the traditional spheric IOL in all subgroups (WMD –0.06, 95%CI –0.07 to –0.06, Plt;0.000 01, WMD –0.06, 95%CI –0.07 to –0.02, Plt;0.000 1, respectively). The majority of studies suggested significant improvement in the aspheric IOL group in contrast sensitivity, especially at mesopic low spatial frequencies, although some trials showed no significant difference. Conclusion The effectiveness of aspheric IOL is superior to spherical IOL during cataract surgery. No differences in aspheric IOL with different aberration are found in this series, and further study is required.
