暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: To automate scientific claim verification using PubMed abstracts.
UNASSIGNED: We developed CliVER, an end-to-end scientific Claim VERification system that leverages retrieval-augmented techniques to automatically retrieve relevant clinical trial abstracts, extract pertinent sentences, and use the PICO framework to support or refute a scientific claim. We also created an ensemble of three state-of-the-art deep learning models to classify rationale of support, refute, and neutral. We then constructed CoVERt, a new COVID VERification dataset comprising 15 PICO-encoded drug claims accompanied by 96 manually selected and labeled clinical trial abstracts that either support or refute each claim. We used CoVERt and SciFact (a public scientific claim verification dataset) to assess CliVER\'s performance in predicting labels. Finally, we compared CliVER to clinicians in the verification of 19 claims from 6 disease domains, using 189 648 PubMed abstracts extracted from January 2010 to October 2021.
UNASSIGNED: In the evaluation of label prediction accuracy on CoVERt, CliVER achieved a notable F1 score of 0.92, highlighting the efficacy of the retrieval-augmented models. The ensemble model outperforms each individual state-of-the-art model by an absolute increase from 3% to 11% in the F1 score. Moreover, when compared with four clinicians, CliVER achieved a precision of 79.0% for abstract retrieval, 67.4% for sentence selection, and 63.2% for label prediction, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: CliVER demonstrates its early potential to automate scientific claim verification using retrieval-augmented strategies to harness the wealth of clinical trial abstracts in PubMed. Future studies are warranted to further test its clinical utility.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Strategies to increase physical activity (PA) and improve nutrition would contribute to substantial health benefits in the population, including reducing the risk of several types of cancers. The increasing accessibility of digital technologies mean that these tools could potentially facilitate the improvement of health behaviours among young people.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a review of systematic reviews to assess the available evidence on digital interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and good nutrition in sub-populations of young people (school-aged children, college/university students, young adults only (over 18 years) and both adolescent and young adults (<25 years)).
UNASSIGNED: Searches for systematic reviews were conducted across relevant databases including KSR Evidence (www.ksrevidence.com), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; CRD). Records were independently screened by title and abstract by two reviewers and those deemed eligible were obtained for full text screening. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. We employed a narrative analysis and developed evidence gap maps.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-four reviews were included with at least one for each sub-population and employing a range of digital interventions. The quality of evidence was limited with only one of the 24 of reviews overall judged as low RoB. Definitions of \"digital intervention\" greatly varied across systematic reviews with some reported interventions fitting into more than one category (i.e., an internet intervention could also be a mobile phone or computer intervention), however definitions as reported in the relevant reviews were used. No reviews reported cancer incidence or related outcomes. Available evidence was limited both by sub-population and type of intervention, but evidence was most pronounced in school-aged children. In school-aged children eHealth interventions, defined as school-based programmes delivered by the internet, computers, tablets, mobile technology, or tele-health methods, improved outcomes. Accelerometer-measured (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD] 0.33, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.61) and self-reported (SMD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.23) PA increased, as did fruit and vegetable intake (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19) (review rated as low RoB, minimal to considerable heterogeneity across results). No difference was reported for consumption of fat post-intervention (SMD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) or sugar sweetened beverages(SSB) and snack consumption combined post-intervention (SMD: -0.02, 95% CI:-0.10 to 0.06),or at the follow up (studies reported 2 weeks to 36 months follow-up) after the intervention (SMD:-0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.03) (review rated low ROB, minimal to substantial heterogeneity across results). Smartphone based interventions utilising Short Messaging Service (SMS), app or combined approaches also improved PA measured using objective and subjective methods (SMD: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) when compared to controls, with increases in total PA [weighted mean difference (WMD) 32.35 min per day, 95% CI: 10.36 to 54.33] and in daily steps (WMD: 1,185, 95% CI: 303 to 2,068) (review rated as high RoB, moderate to substantial heterogeneity across results). For all results, interpretation has limitations in terms of RoB and presence of unexplained heterogeneity.
UNASSIGNED: This review of reviews has identified limited evidence that suggests some potential for digital interventions to increase PA and, to lesser extent, improve nutrition in school-aged children. However, effects can be small and based on less robust evidence. The body of evidence is characterised by a considerable level of heterogeneity, unclear/overlapping populations and intervention definitions, and a low methodological quality of systematic reviews. The heterogeneity across studies is further complicated when the age (older vs. more recent), interactivity (feedback/survey vs. no/less feedback/surveys), and accessibility (type of device) of the digital intervention is considered. This underscores the difficulty in synthesising evidence in a field with rapidly evolving technology and the resulting challenges in recommending the use of digital technology in public health. There is an urgent need for further research using contemporary technology and appropriate methods.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available.
METHODS: Evidence-comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims.
RESULTS: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release.
CONCLUSIONS: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.

\'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2\' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective.
A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins.
Not applicable.

The realist review/synthesis has become an increasingly prominent methodological approach to evidence synthesis that can inform policy and practice. While there are publication standards and guidelines for the conduct of realist reviews, published reviews often provide minimal detail regarding how they have conducted some methodological steps. This includes selecting and appraising evidence sources, which are often considered for their \'relevance, richness and rigour.\' In contrast to other review approaches, for example, narrative reviews and meta-analyses, the inclusion criteria and appraisal of evidence within realist reviews depend less on the study\'s methodological quality and more on its contribution to our understanding of generative causation, uncovered through the process of retroductive theorising. This research brief aims to discuss the current challenges and practices for appraising documents\' relevance, richness and rigour and to provide pragmatic suggestions for how realist reviewers can put this into practice.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been shown to have benefit in patients with heart failure (HF). Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs and MAs) of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing SGLT2i to placebo have been performed. However, there is uncertainty in the quality of the evidence and associated efficacy. We performed an overview of SRs and MAs of RCTs to summarize the evidence related to the efficacy of SGLT2i for the management of HF.
A comprehensive search of three databases (the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed) was conducted until February 21, 2021. All SRs of RCTs evaluating the efficacy of SGLT2i in patients with HF were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 assessment tool. The overall quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. The initial search yielded 3431 references, of which, eight SRs and MAs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality ranged from critically low to high. The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Most of the SRs and MAs showed benefits in all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations, and KCCQ score change.
SGLT2i are possibly beneficial in patients with HF, however, none of the SRs and MAs compared the efficacy between different types of SGLT2i. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the need for consistent reproducible conduct and reporting of SRs to generate high-quality evidence and facilitate clinical decision-making.

Teosinte, wild maize relatives originating from Mexico and Central America, emerged as a noxious agricultural weed in France and Spain. In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a technical report that assessed the available scientific information on teosinte for its relevance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) and risk management (RM) of genetically modified (GM) maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation. It was concluded that the impact of insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance in GM teosinte hybrid progeny (potentially acquired through hybridisation between GM maize and teosinte) on target and non-target organisms, the abiotic environment and biogeochemical cycles would be very low under EU conditions. Following a request of the European Commission, EFSA evaluated whether the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, or require revision in light of new scientific evidence on teosinte that has become available since the publication of EFSA (2016). A protocol was developed to clarify the interpretation of the terms of reference of the mandate and make them operational. The assessment relied on evidence retrieved via an extensive literature search and from reports of the Competent Authorities of France and Spain, and on hearing expert testimonies. A limited collection of 18 publications of varying relevance and quality was retrieved and assessed. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, except those pertaining to the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on maize GA21 which should be considered under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In infested agricultural areas (especially in regions where maize MON810 is widely grown), weed management measures implemented to monitor, control and/or eradicate teosinte must remain in place, as they will contribute to further reduce the low vertical gene flow potential between GM maize and EU teosinte.