OBJECTIVE: To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies.
METHODS: A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records.
RESULTS: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.

暂无摘要。

Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes.
We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE.
Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence).
We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty.
PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain.
We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (\'bias\') and random errors (\'play of chance\') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research.
PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the \'target trial framework\' as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it.
The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias.
The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%).
Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the \'target trial\' framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

UNASSIGNED: In 2002, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) introduced semi-automated indexing of Medline using the Medical Text Indexer (MTI). In 2021, NLM announced that it would fully automate its indexing in Medline with an improved MTI by mid-2022. This pilot study examines indexing using a sample of records in Medline from 2000, and how an early, public version of MTI\'s outputs compares to records created by human indexers.
UNASSIGNED: This pilot study examines twenty Medline records from 2000, a year before the MTI was introduced as a MeSH term recommender. We identified twenty higher- and lower-impact biomedical journals based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and examined the indexing of papers by feeding their PubMed records into the Interactive MTI tool.
UNASSIGNED: In the sample, we found key differences between automated and human-indexed Medline records: MTI assigned more terms and used them more accurately for citations in the higher JIF group, and MTI tended to rank the Male check tag more highly than the Female check tag and to omit Aged check tags. Sometimes MTI chose more specific terms than human indexers but was inconsistent in applying specificity principles.
UNASSIGNED: NLM\'s transition to fully automated indexing of the biomedical literature could introduce or perpetuate inconsistencies and biases in Medline. Librarians and searchers should assess changes to index terms, and their impact on PubMed\'s mapping features for a range of topics. Future research should evaluate automated indexing as it pertains to finding clinical information effectively, and in performing systematic searches.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based medicine. However, an article with low reporting quality may mislead both experts and the general public into an erroneous decision. Data sharing can contribute to the truthfulness and transparency of trials. Acupuncture RCTs have been increasing rapidly these years, but the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs are not clear. Thus, this study will provide the current status of the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs.
A cross-sectional study will be conducted. The seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database and VIP will be searched between 1 January 2012 and 15 October 2022 to identify acupuncture RCTs. The basic characteristics of included trials will be summarised. The reporting quality for included RCTs will be assessed by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture. The data-sharing level will be assessed by open science practices.
Ethical approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Two deprescribing search filters for MEDLINE and one deprescribing search filter for Embase have been recently developed, including objectively developed search filters. The objective of this case study was to implement these three deprescribing search filters in systematic review (SR) search strategies and to assess their effect on performances. SR that independently developed original search strategies (OSS) were selected. The deprescribing filters were implemented in each OSS, generating two implemented search strategies (ISS1 and ISS2) in MEDLINE and one ISS (ISS3) in Embase. OSS were re-run on the same date as ISS. The performances of ISS and OSS were calculated and compared. Two SR were included (SR1 and SR2). For MEDLINE, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 50% for OSS, 58% for ISS1 and 42% for ISS2. SR2 included four articles. The sensitivity of OSS, ISS 1 and 2 was 25%. For Embase, SR1 included 12 articles. The sensitivity was 33% for OSS and 58% for ISS3. SR2 included four articles. None of the four included articles were retrieved with OSS or ISS3. While sensitivity of OSS was moderate, the objectively developed deprescribing filters maintained or slightly improved this sensitivity when implementing.

Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.
SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.
Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.
For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

Our aim was to identify and synthesize the results from meta-research studies to determine whether and how authors of original studies in clinical health research use systematic reviews when designing new studies.
For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We included meta-research studies and primary outcome was the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to design their study. Risk of bias was assessed using an ad hoc created list of ten items. The results are presented both as a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis.
Sixteen studies were included. The use of a systematic review to inform the design of new clinical studies varied between 0% and 73%, with a mean percentage of 17%. The number of components of the design in which information from previous systematic reviews was used varied from three to 11.
Clinical health research is characterized by variability regarding the extent to which systematic reviews are used to guide the design. An evidence-based research (EBR) approach towards research design when new clinical health studies are designed is necessary to decrease potential research redundancy and increase end-user value.