BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.
RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Information literacy skills are an important part of research skills for undergraduate science students. This case study presents a novel approach to developing these types of research skills. By deconstructing the research process into separate steps, explicitly defining, and practicing the skills involved, students can progressively develop these skills and apply them. In this course, systematic reviews are used as exemplars for the research process. We align the Research Skills Development Framework with the steps of a systematic review and present specific skills and accompanying activities for each step. This workshop-based course emphasizes skill development and can help overcome assessments that rely solely on a final paper, with no record or evidence of the student research process, that could be created by a generative artificial intelligence tool.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study presents a novel approach to teaching undergraduate science students rigorous research skills with scaffolded systematic review practice.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses typically require significant time and effort. Machine learning models have the potential to enhance screening efficiency in these processes. To effectively evaluate such models, fully labeled datasets-detailing all records screened by humans and their labeling decisions-are imperative. This paper presents the creation of a comprehensive dataset for a systematic review of treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder, as reported by Oud et al. (2018) for running a simulation study. The authors adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and published both the search query and the list of included records, but the complete dataset with all labels was not disclosed. We replicated their search and, facing the absence of initial screening data, introduced a Noisy Label Filter (NLF) procedure using active learning to validate noisy labels. Following the NLF application, no further relevant records were found. A simulation study employing the reconstructed dataset demonstrated that active learning could reduce screening time by 82.30% compared to random reading. The paper discusses potential causes for discrepancies, provides recommendations, and introduces a decision tree to assist in reconstructing datasets for the purpose of running simulation studies.

UNASSIGNED: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians\' involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality.
UNASSIGNED: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian\'s involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (\"a librarian\") and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians\' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian\'s work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies.
UNASSIGNED: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians\' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians\' work is documented.

In 2019 we invented the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology, to complete full, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic reviews in approximately 2 weeks. Since then we have continued to develop and adapt the 2weekSR methodology for completing larger and more complex systematic reviews, including less experienced or inexperienced team members.
For ten 2weekSRs, we collected data on (1) systematic review characteristics; (2) systematic review teams; and (3) time to completion and publication. We have also continued to develop new tools and integrate them into the 2weekSR processes.
The 10 2weekSRs addressed intervention, prevalence, and utilization questions, and included a mix of randomized and observational studies. Reviews involved screening from 458 to 5,471 references, and included between 5 and 81 studies. The median team size was 6. Most reviews (7/10) included team members with limited systematic review experience; three included team members with no prior experience. Reviews required a median of 11 workdays (range: 5-20) and 17 calendar days (range: 5-84) to complete; time from journal submission to publication ranged from 99 to 260 days.
The 2weekSR methodology scales with review size and complexity, offering a considerable time-saving over traditionally conducted systematic reviews without relying on methodological shortcuts associated with \"rapid reviews.\"

A commonly reported challenge of using Google Search to identify studies for a systematic review is the high number of results retrieved. Thus, \'stopping rules\' are applied when screening, such as screening only the first 100 results. However, recent evidence shows that Google Search estimates a much higher number of results than the viewable number, raising the possibility of exhaustive screening. This study aimed to provide further evidence on the feasibility of screening search results from Google Search exhaustively, and to assess the desirability of this in terms of identifying studies for a systematic review. We conducted a cross-case analysis of the search results of eight Google Search searches from two systematic reviews. Feasibility of exhaustive screening was ascertained by calculating the viewable number of results. Desirability was ascertained according to: (1) the distribution of studies within the results, irrespective of relevance to a systematic review; (2) the distribution of studies which met the inclusion criteria for the two systematic reviews. The estimated number of results across the eight searches ranged from 342,000 to 72,300,000. The viewable number ranged from 272 to 364. Across the eight searches the distribution of studies was highest in the first 100 results. However, the lowest ranking relevant studies were ranked 227th and 215th for the two systematic reviews. One study per review was identified uniquely from searching Google Search, both within the first 100 results. The findings suggest it is feasible and desirable to screen Google Search results more extensively than commonly reported.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.
METHODS: We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.
RESULTS: Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the reporting of the preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instrument, the EQ-5D, and proposes strategies to improve reporting and reduce research waste. The EQ-5D is a validated instrument widely used for health economic evaluation and is useful for informing health policy.
METHODS: As part of a systematic review of papers reporting EQ-5D utility weights in patients with coronary artery disease, we noted the reasons data from some papers could not be reused in a meta-analysis, including whether health utility weights and sufficient statistical details were reported. Research waste was quantified using: (1) the percentage of papers and sample size excluded, and (2) researcher time and cost reviewing poorly reported papers.
RESULTS: Our search strategy found 5942 papers. At title and abstract screening 93% were excluded. Of the 379 full text papers screened, 130 papers reported using EQ-5D. Only 46% (60/130) of those studies reported utility weights and/or statistical properties enabling meta-analysis. Only 67% of included papers had reported EQ-5D in the title or abstract. A total sample size of 133,298 was excluded because of poor reporting. The cost of researcher time wasted estimated to be between $3816 and $13,279 for our review.
CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting of EQ-5D data creates research waste where potentially useful data are excluded from meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Poor reporting of HRQOL instruments also creates waste due to additional time spent reviewing papers for systematic reviews that are subsequently excluded.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies using the EQ-5D should report utility weights with appropriate summary statistics to enable reuse in meta-analysis and more robust evidence for health policy. We recommend authors report the HRQOL instrument in the title or abstract in line with current reporting guidelines (CONSORT-PRO and SPIRIT-PRO Extensions) to make it easier for other researchers to find. Validated instruments should also be listed in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to improve cataloguing and retrieval of previous research.

Objectives: Spontaneous rupture of the urinary bladder (SRUB) is extremely rare and might be misdiagnosed, leading to a high mortality rate. The current study aimed to identify the cause, clinical features, and diagnosis strategy of SRUB. Methodology: We presented a case report for two women (79 and 63 years old) misdiagnosed with acute abdomen and acute kidney injury, respectively, who were finally confirmed to have SRUB by a series of investigations and exploratory surgery. Meanwhile, literature from multiple databases was reviewed. PubMed, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database (CBM), WANFANG DATA, and the Chongqing VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP) were searched with the keywords \"spontaneous bladder rupture\" or \"spontaneous rupture of bladder\" or \"spontaneous rupture of urinary bladder.\" All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 software. Results: A total of 137 Chinese and 182 English literature papers were included in this article review. A total of 713 SRUB patients were analyzed, including the two patients reported by us. The most common cause of SRUB was alcohol intoxication, lower urinary tract obstruction, bladder tumor or inflammation, pregnancy-related causes, bladder dysfunction, pelvic radiotherapy, and history of bladder surgery or bladder diverticulum. Most cases were diagnosed by exploratory laparotomy and CT cystography. Patients with extraperitoneal rupture could present with abdominal pain, abdominal distention, dysuria, oliguria or anuria, and fever. While the main symptoms of intraperitoneal rupture patients could be various and non-specific. The common misdiagnoses include acute abdomen, inflammatory digestive disease, bladder tumor or inflammation, and renal failure. Most of the patients (84.57%) were treated by open surgical repair, and most of them were intraperitoneal rupture patients. Overall, 1.12% of patients were treated by laparoscopic surgery, and all of them were intraperitoneal rupture patients. Besides, 17 intraperitoneal rupture patients and 6 extraperitoneal rupture patients were treated by indwelling catheterization and antibiotic therapy. Nine patients died of delayed diagnosis and treatment. Conclusions: SRUB often presents with various and non-specific symptoms, which results in misdiagnosis or delayed treatment. Medical staff noticing abdominal pain suggestive of peritonitis with urinary symptoms should be suspicious of bladder rupture, especially in patients with a history of bladder disease. CT cystography can be the best preoperative non-invasive examination tool for both diagnosis and evaluation. Conservative management in the form of urine drainage and antibiotic therapy can be used in patients without severe infection, bleeding, or major injury. Otherwise, surgical treatment is recommended. Early diagnosis and management of SRUB are crucial for an uneventful recovery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest level of evidence to answer research questions; however, they are time and resource intensive.
OBJECTIVE: When comparing SR tasks done manually, using standard methods, versus those same SR tasks done using automated tools, (1) what is the difference in time to complete the SR task and (2) what is the impact on the error rate of the SR task?
METHODS: A case study compared specific tasks done during the conduct of an SR on prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation in chronic kidney disease. Two participants (manual team) conducted the SR using current methods, comprising a total of 16 tasks. Another two participants (automation team) conducted the tasks where a systematic review automation (SRA) tool was available, comprising of a total of six tasks. The time taken and error rate of the six tasks that were completed by both teams were compared.
RESULTS: The approximate time for the manual team to produce a draft of the background, methods, and results sections of the SR was 126 hours. For the six tasks in which times were compared, the manual team spent 2493 minutes (42 hours) on the tasks, compared to 708 minutes (12 hours) spent by the automation team. The manual team had a higher error rate in two of the six tasks-regarding Task 5: Run the systematic search, the manual team made eight errors versus three errors made by the automation team; regarding Task 12: Assess the risk of bias, 25 assessments differed from a reference standard for the manual team compared to 20 differences for the automation team. The manual team had a lower error rate in one of the six tasks-regarding Task 6: Deduplicate search results, the manual team removed one unique study and missed zero duplicates versus the automation team who removed two unique studies and missed seven duplicates. Error rates were similar for the two remaining compared tasks-regarding Task 7: Screen the titles and abstracts and Task 9: Screen the full text, zero relevant studies were excluded by both teams. One task could not be compared between groups-Task 8: Find the full text.
CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of SR tasks where an SRA tool was used, the time required to complete that task was reduced for novice researchers while methodological quality was maintained.