Since the Artificial Intelligence Committee of the American Society of Retina Specialists developed the initial task force report in 2020, the artificial intelligence (AI) field has seen further adoption of US Food and Drug Administration-approved AI platforms and significant development of AI for various retinal conditions. With expansion of this technology comes further areas of challenges, including the data sources used in AI, the democracy of AI, commercialization, bias, and the need for provider education on the technology of AI. The overall focus of this committee report is to explore these recent issues as they relate to the continued development of AI and its integration into ophthalmology and retinal practice.

BACKGROUND: Iron and folic acid supplementation have been recommended in pregnancy for anaemia prevention, and may improve other maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy, either alone or in combination with folic acid or with other vitamins and minerals, as an intervention in antenatal care.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Registry on 18 January 2024 (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO\'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, conference proceedings), and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.
METHODS: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated the effects of oral supplementation with daily iron, iron + folic acid, or iron + other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy were included.
METHODS: Review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, ascertained trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for primary outcomes. We anticipated high heterogeneity amongst trials; we pooled trial results using a random-effects model (average treatment effect).
RESULTS: We included 57 trials involving 48,971 women. A total of 40 trials compared the effects of daily oral supplements with iron to placebo or no iron; eight trials evaluated the effects of iron + folic acid compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Iron supplementation compared to placebo or no iron Maternal outcomes: Iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia (4.0% versus 7.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47; 14 trials, 13,543 women; low-certainty evidence) and iron deficiency at term (44.0% versus 66.0%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68; 8 trials, 2873 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces maternal iron-deficiency anaemia at term (5.0% versus 18.4%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63; 7 trials, 2704 women; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. There is probably little to no difference in maternal death (2 versus 4 events, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 3 trials, 14,060 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for adverse effects (21.6% versus 18.0%; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.02; 12 trials, 2423 women; very low-certainty evidence) and severe anaemia (Hb < 70 g/L) in the second/third trimester (< 1% versus 3.6%; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.20; 8 trials, 1398 women; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported clinical malaria or infection during pregnancy. Infant outcomes: Women taking iron supplements are probably less likely to have infants with low birthweight (5.2% versus 6.1%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99; 12 trials, 18,290 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron supplementation. However, the evidence is very uncertain for infant birthweight (MD 24.9 g, 95% CI -125.81 to 175.60; 16 trials, 18,554 infants; very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference in preterm birth (7.6% versus 8.2%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; 11 trials, 18,827 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and there may be little to no difference in neonatal death (1.4% versus 1.5%, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; 4 trials, 17,243 infants; low-certainty evidence) or congenital anomalies, including neural tube defects (41 versus 48 events; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33; 4 trials, 14,377 infants; low-certainty evidence). Iron + folic supplementation compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid Maternal outcomes: Daily oral supplementation with iron + folic acid probably reduces maternal anaemia at term (12.1% versus 25.5%; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 4 trials, 1962 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce maternal iron deficiency at term (3.6% versus 15%; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99; 1 trial, 131 women; low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of iron + folic acid on maternal iron-deficiency anaemia (10.8% versus 25%; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.09; 1 trial, 131 women; very low-certainty evidence), or maternal deaths (no events; 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for adverse effects (21.0% versus 0.0%; RR 44.32, 95% CI 2.77 to 709.09; 1 trial, 456 women; low-certainty evidence), and the evidence is very uncertain for severe anaemia in the second or third trimester (< 1% versus 5.6%; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63; 4 trials, 506 women; very low-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infant outcomes: There may be little to no difference in infant low birthweight (33.4% versus 40.2%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.74; 2 trials, 1311 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. Infants born to women who received iron + folic acid during pregnancy probably had higher birthweight (MD 57.73 g, 95% CI 7.66 to 107.79; 2 trials, 1365 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to placebo or no iron + folic acid. There may be little to no difference in other infant outcomes, including preterm birth (19.4% versus 19.2%; RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 6.00; 3 trials, 1497 infants; low-certainty evidence), neonatal death (3.4% versus 4.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.30; 1 trial, 1793 infants; low-certainty evidence), or congenital anomalies (1.7% versus 2.4; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.40; 1 trial, 1652 infants; low-certainty evidence), comparing iron + folic acid supplementation to placebo or no iron + folic acid. A total of 19 trials were conducted in malaria-endemic countries, or in settings with some malaria risk. No studies reported maternal clinical malaria; one study reported data on placental malaria.
CONCLUSIONS: Daily oral iron supplementation during pregnancy may reduce maternal anaemia and iron deficiency at term. For other maternal and infant outcomes, there was little to no difference between groups or the evidence was uncertain. Future research is needed to examine the effects of iron supplementation on other maternal and infant health outcomes, including infant iron status, growth, and development.

BACKGROUND: Stroke patients often face disabilities that significantly interfere with their daily lives. Poor nutritional status is a common issue amongst these patients, and malnutrition can severely impact their functional recovery post-stroke. Therefore, nutritional therapy is crucial in managing stroke outcomes. However, its effects on disability, activities of daily living (ADL), and other critical outcomes have not been fully explored.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of nutritional therapy on reducing disability and improving ADL in patients after stroke.
METHODS: We searched the trial registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), and AMED (from 1985) to 19 February 2024. We also searched trials and research registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and reference lists of articles.
METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared nutritional therapy with placebo, usual care, or one type of nutritional therapy in people after stroke. Nutritional therapy was defined as the administration of supplemental nutrients, including energy, protein, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, through oral, enteral, or parenteral methods. As a comparator, one type of nutritional therapy refers to all forms of nutritional therapies, excluding the specific nutritional therapy defined for use in the intervention group.
METHODS: We used Cochrane\'s Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Two review authors independently screened references that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. The primary outcomes were disability and ADL. We also assessed gait, nutritional status, all-cause mortality, quality of life, hand and leg muscle strength, cognitive function, physical performance, stroke recurrence, swallowing function, neurological impairment, and the development of complications (adverse events) as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified 52 eligible RCTs involving 11,926 participants. Thirty-six studies were conducted in the acute phase, 10 in the subacute phase, three in the acute and subacute phases, and three in the chronic phase. Twenty-three studies included patients with ischaemic stroke, three included patients with haemorrhagic stroke, three included patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), and 23 included patients with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke including SAH. There were 25 types of nutritional supplements used as an intervention. The number of studies that assessed disability and ADL as outcomes were nine and 17, respectively. For the intervention using oral energy and protein supplements, which was a primary intervention in this review, six studies were included. The results for the seven outcomes focused on (disability, ADL, body weight change, all-cause mortality, gait speed, quality of life, and incidence of complications (adverse events)) were as follows: There was no evidence of a difference in reducing disability when \'good status\' was defined as an mRS score of 0 to 2 (for \'good status\': OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 4023 participants; low-certainty evidence). Oral energy and protein supplements may improve ADL as indicated by an increase in the FIM motor score, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 8.74, 95% CI 5.93 to 11.54; 2 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Oral energy and protein supplements may increase body weight, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.58; 3 RCTs, 205 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in reducing all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.28; 2 RCTs, 4065 participants; low-certainty evidence). For gait speed and quality of life, no study was identified. With regard to incidence of complications (adverse events), there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of infections, including pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and septicaemia (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.30; 1 RCT, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The intervention was associated with an increased incidence of diarrhoea compared to usual care (OR 4.29, 95% CI 1.98 to 9.28; 1 RCT, 4023 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the occurrence of hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia (OR 15.6, 95% CI 4.84 to 50.23; 1 RCT, 4023 participants; low-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effect of nutritional therapy, including oral energy and protein supplements and other supplements identified in this review, on reducing disability and improving ADL in people after stroke. Various nutritional interventions were assessed for the outcomes in the included studies, and almost all studies had small sample sizes. This led to challenges in conducting meta-analyses and reduced the precision of the evidence. Moreover, most of the studies had issues with the risk of bias, especially in terms of the absence of blinding and unclear information. Regarding adverse events, the intervention with oral energy and protein supplements was associated with a higher number of adverse events, such as diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia, compared to usual care. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Given the low certainty of most of the evidence in our review, further research is needed. Future research should focus on targeted nutritional interventions to reduce disability and improve ADL based on a theoretical rationale in people after stroke and there is a need for improved methodology and reporting.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a combination of physical, psychological and social symptoms in women of reproductive age, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe type of the syndrome, previously known as late luteal phase dysphoric disorder (LLPDD). Both syndromes cause symptoms during the two weeks leading up to menstruation (the luteal phase). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are increasingly used as a treatment for PMS and PMDD, either administered in the luteal phase or continuously. We undertook a systematic review to assess the evidence of the positive effects and the harms of SSRIs in the management of PMS and PMDD.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of SSRIs in treating women diagnosed with PMS and PMDD.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in November 2023. We checked reference lists of relevant studies, searched trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. This is an update of a review last published in 2013.
METHODS: We considered studies in which women with a prospective diagnosis of PMS, PMDD or LLPDD were randomised to receive SSRIs or placebo.
METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for premenstrual symptom scores, using \'post-treatment\' scores for continuous data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. We stratified analyses by type of administration (luteal phase or continuous). We calculated absolute risks and the number of women who would need to be taking SSRIs in order to cause one additional adverse event (i.e. the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH)). We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the main findings using GRADE.
RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs in the review. The studies compared SSRIs (i.e. fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, escitalopram and citalopram) to placebo. SSRIs probably reduce overall self-rated premenstrual symptoms in women with PMS and PMDD (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.42; I2 = 51%; 12 studies, 1742 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). SSRI treatment was probably more effective when administered continuously than when administered only in the luteal phase (P = 0.03 for subgroup difference; luteal phase group: SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.21; 6 studies, 687 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; continuous group: SMD -0.69, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.51; 7 studies, 1055 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse effects associated with SSRIs were nausea (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.58 to 4.21; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 3664 women), insomnia (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.63; I2 = 0%; 18 studies, 3722 women), sexual dysfunction or decreased libido (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.42; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 2781 women), fatigue or sedation (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.20; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 1230 women), dizziness or vertigo (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.83; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2633 women), tremor (OR 5.38, 95% CI 2.20 to 13.16; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1352 women), somnolence and decreased concentration (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.30; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 2050 women), sweating (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.47; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 2304 women), dry mouth (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.75 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 1753 women), asthenia or decreased energy (OR 3.28, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.98; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1704 women), diarrhoea (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.08; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 2681 women), and constipation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.26; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1022 women). There was moderate-certainty evidence for all adverse effects other than somnolence/decreased concentration, which was low-certainty evidence. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was moderate. The main weakness was poor reporting of study methodology. Heterogeneity was low or absent for most outcomes, although there was moderate heterogeneity in the analysis of overall self-rated premenstrual symptoms. Based on the meta-analysis of response rate (the outcome with the most included studies), there was suspected publication bias. In total, 68% of the included studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies. This stresses the importance of interpreting the review findings with caution.
CONCLUSIONS: SSRIs probably reduce premenstrual symptoms in women with PMS and PMDD and are probably more effective when taken continuously compared to luteal phase administration. SSRI treatment probably increases the risk of adverse events, with the most common being nausea, asthenia and somnolence.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SR) are regularly updated to reflect new evidence. However, updates are time-consuming and costly, and therefore should ideally be informed by new high-quality research. The purpose of this study is to assess trends in the quantity, quality, and recency of evidence intervening updates of orthodontic SR.
METHODS: SR relevant to orthodontics with at least two versions were identified from the Cochrane Database. The number, risk of bias, and year of publication of included trials were recorded for each update. Multivariate regression was conducted to assess factors affecting the risk of bias in trials, and the proportions within SR.
RESULTS: Forty-five SR inclusive of updates were included. The median number of trials was three per review and this increased across subsequent versions. Seven reviews (15.6%) included no evidence, and 40.74% of updates included no new evidence. Most of the primary research was considered high risk of bias (57.3%), although this was reduced marginally across updates. The proportion of studies considered low risk did not improve significantly between updates. There was no impact of publication year of clinical trials on the risk of bias (P = 0.349). However, average age of trials included in a systematic review significantly affected the proportion of low risk-of-bias studies (P = 0.039).
CONCLUSIONS: SR are frequently updated without including new evidence. New evidence that is included is commonly deemed to be at high risk of bias. Targeted strategies to improve the efficient use of resources and improve research quality should be considered.

This paper provides an overview of the history, composition, organization, responsibilities, and regulatory requirements of Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMB), with particular reference to the context of clinical trials in spinal cord injury. It is intended to help potential members of such boards and those undertaking the design of new clinical trials to understand the important role of the DSMB in safeguarding the integrity of complex trials, promoting safety, and countering potential bias. An independent DSMB helps to protect research subjects by providing study oversight and serves as an additional step to assure that clinical trials are performed to existing and appropriate standards. The DSMB must meet on a regular schedule, diligently evaluate all the information it receives, and report in a timely and decisive manner. Members must be free of significant conflicts of interest throughout the study and be adequately trained and experienced to serve their roles within the group. DSMB service can be a valuable learning experience and a gratifying opportunity to participate in advancing medicine and helping to maintain and improve the standards of research.

BACKGROUND: Disease latency is defined as the time from disease initiation to disease diagnosis. Disease latency bias (DLB) can arise in epidemiological studies that examine latent outcomes, since the exact timing of the disease inception is unknown and might occur before exposure initiation, potentially leading to bias. Although DLB can affect epidemiological studies that examine different types of chronic disease (e.g. Alzheimer\'s disease, cancer etc), the manner by which DLB can introduce bias into these studies has not been previously elucidated. Information on the specific types of bias, and their structure, that can arise secondary to DLB is critical for researchers, to enable better understanding and control for DLB.
METHODS: Here we describe four scenarios by which DLB can introduce bias (through different structures) into epidemiological studies that address latent outcomes, using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We also discuss potential strategies to better understand, examine and control for DLB in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Using causal diagrams, we show that disease latency bias can affect results of epidemiological studies through: (i) unmeasured confounding; (ii) reverse causality; (iii) selection bias; (iv) bias through a mediator.
CONCLUSIONS: Disease latency bias is an important bias that can affect a number of epidemiological studies that address latent outcomes. Causal diagrams can assist researchers better identify and control for this bias.

The study of cognitive biases in job interviews has garnered significant attention due to its far-reaching implications for the economy and society. However, little research has focused on the biases exhibited by expert psychologists serving on psychology specialization examination committees. As such, this study has conducted a comprehensive examination of biases within the specialization exam in Israel. One additional objective of the research is to assess the levels of distress experienced by examinees following the examination. Questionnaires were administered to 418 psychologists participating in the clinical and educational psychology specialization exams. The findings unveiled several noteworthy outcomes. Firstly, several biases were identified, including ethnic stereotypes, biases stemming from cognitive load, and more. Secondly, examinees who presented a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) case experienced a higher failure rate. Thirdly, a positive association was found between exam failure and personal distress and this effect was stronger for educational examinees compared to clinical examinees. The most intriguing discovery was that all biases, without exception, occurred among clinical psychologists, whereas educational psychologists displayed no biases. This outcome contrasted with initial expectations. Consequently, the present study aims to expand the existing knowledge about psychological biases and stereotypes by elucidate the reasons behind this discrepancy between the two disciplines while considering the advantages and disadvantages associated with a sense of \"expertise\" in the realm of adult diagnostics.

The traditional view of cognition as detached from emotions is recently being questioned. This study aimed to investigate the influence of emotional valence on the accuracy and bias in the representation of numbers on the mental number line (MNL). The study included 164 participants who were randomly assigned into two groups with induced positive and negative emotional valence using matched arousal film clips. Participants performed a computerised number-to-position (CNP) task to estimate the position of numbers on a horizontal line. The results showed that participants in the positive valence group exhibited a rightward bias, while those in the negative valence group showed an opposite pattern. The analysis of mean absolute error revealed that the negative valence group had higher error rates compared to the positive valence group. Furthermore, the MNL estimation pattern analysis indicated that a two-cycle cyclic power model (CPM) best explained the data for both groups. These findings suggest that emotional valence influences the spatial representation of numbers on the MNL and affects accuracy in numerical estimations. Our findings are finally discussed in terms of body-specificity and the Brain\'s Asymmetric Frequency Tuning (BAFT) theories. The study provides new insights into the interplay between emotions and numerical cognition.

Desired fertility measures are routinely collected and used by researchers and policy makers, but their self-reported nature raises the possibility of reporting bias. In this paper, we test for the presence of such bias by comparing responses to direct survey questions with indirect questions offering a varying, randomized, degree of confidentiality to respondents in a socioeconomically diverse sample of Nigerian women ([Formula: see text]). We find that women report higher fertility preferences when asked indirectly, but only when their responses afford them complete confidentiality, not when their responses are simply blind to the enumerator. Our results suggest that there may be fewer unintended pregnancies than currently thought and that the effectiveness of family planning policy targeting may be weakened by the bias we uncover. We conclude with suggestions for future work on how to mitigate reporting bias.