An assessment of the validity of studies is an essential component of most evidence syntheses (systematic reviews) to understand the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of the evidence. A formal validity assessment requires a structured and comprehensive approach, which can be implemented using an assessment tool, specifically developed for this purpose. Many different tools are available, marking it difficult for researchers to choose the best tool for their evidence synthesis. We have established the LATITUDES Network to assist researchers in identifying the most appropriate tool to use in their evidence synthesis and to support researchers using these tools. The LATITUDES website (www.latitudes-network.org) includes a searchable library of validity assessment tools designed for use in evidence syntheses, bringing tools together in one place and providing researchers with clear information on suitable tools, categorized by study design. The website also provides links to training on the process of validity assessment and a list of tools currently under development. To be included in the LATITUDES library, tools must meet the following criteria: be designed for use in evidence syntheses; assess multidimensional aspects of validity of individual studies or reviews; and be developed for use by the wider research community rather than for a single research group. We highlight \'key\' tools, those that are considered to be the most robust and reliable tools based on prespecified criteria agreed in conjunction with our advisory board, an international group of experts in the area of evidence synthesis and ROB tools.

Recently, Ades and colleagues discussed the controversies and advancements in network meta-analysis (NMA) over the past two decades, discussing its reliability, assumptions, novel approaches, and provided some useful recommendations for the conduction of NMAs. The present discussion paper builds on the insights by Ades and colleagues, providing a roadmap for NMA applications, advancements in software and tools, and approaches designed to facilitate the assessment and interpretation of NMA findings. It also discusses the impact of NMA across disciplines, particularly for policymakers and guideline developers. Despite 20 years of NMA history, challenges remain in understanding and assessing assumptions, communicating and interpreting findings, and applying common approaches like network meta-regression and NMA involving non-randomized studies in readily available software. NMA has proven particularly valuable in clinical decision-making, which highlights the need for additional training and interdisciplinary collaboration of knowledge users, including patient engagement, to enhance its adoption and address real-world problems.

BACKGROUND: Standard systematic review can be labor-intensive and time-consuming meaning that it can be difficult to provide timely evidence when there is an urgent public health emergency such as a pandemic. The ClinicalTrials.gov provides a promising way to accelerate evidence production.
METHODS: We conducted a search on PubMed to gather systematic reviews containing a minimum of 5 studies focused on safety aspects derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions, aiming to establish a real-world dataset. The registration information of each trial from eligible reviews was further collected and verified. The meta-analytic data were then re-analyzed by using 1) the full meta-analytic data with all trials and 2) emulated rapid data with trials that had been registered and posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov, under the same synthesis methods. The effect estimates of the full meta-analysis and rapid meta-analysis were then compared.
RESULTS: The real-world dataset comprises 558 meta-analyses. Among them, 56 (10.0%) meta-analyses included RCTs that were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. For the remaining 502 meta-analyses, the median percentage of RCTs registered within each meta-analysis is 70.1% (interquartile range: 33.3% to 88.9%). Under a 20% bias threshold, rapid meta-analyses conducted through ClinicalTrials.gov achieved accurate point estimates ranging from 77.4% (using the MH model) to 83.1% (using the GLMM model); 91.0% to 95.3% of these analyses accurately predicted the direction of effects.
CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing the ClinicalTrials.gov platform for safety assessment with a minimum of 5 RCTs holds significant potential for accelerating evidence synthesis to support urgent decision-making.

UNASSIGNED: Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding.
UNASSIGNED: To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS.
UNASSIGNED: Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents\' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops.
UNASSIGNED: We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence.
UNASSIGNED: There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: \'Breastfeeding only\' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for \'breastfeeding plus\' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women\'s and supporters\' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK.
UNASSIGNED: Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen\'s University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/).
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
We know that breastfeeding is good for the health of mothers and babies, yet many mothers experience difficulties and stop breastfeeding before they want to. This is noticeable among women living in disadvantaged areas where there are low rates of breastfeeding. Good support may help women overcome difficulties so that they can continue to breastfeed. Women with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and depression face additional challenges in breastfeeding. We wanted to understand how to improve breastfeeding support for UK women. We brought together previous scientific studies to learn about what works. We also spoke with parents and service providers. We combined all our findings into a toolkit to help the NHS improve breastfeeding support for women. We found that, for healthy women, some forms of breastfeeding support can probably help reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding and help them breastfeed exclusively. For women with chronic illnesses, we found that the types of support used in the studies probably did not help women to breastfeed. Most of the evidence did not come from the UK. We identified barriers to providing breastfeeding support for all women, especially those who are disadvantaged. We identified strategies that could help the NHS overcome these barriers. There was a lack of evidence on how cost-effective these interventions are compared with usual care, but parents and providers saw the value of paying for breastfeeding support. Giving women targeted breastfeeding support will help them to breastfeed; however, we need to test if this support works in the NHS. We also need to develop additional services for women with chronic illnesses. The NHS could use our findings to improve support for all breastfeeding women by identifying specific barriers and using evidence-based strategies to overcome them.

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement (PI) in systematic reviews (SRs) can help to improve the quality of SRs and enhance the credibility of the research process. At the same time, PI in SRs poses challenges such as the need for extra time. While several organizations and working groups from English-speaking countries provide recommendations for PI in SRs, there is a lack of current insights from stakeholders in Germany, including researchers and patients. Eliciting their perspectives is indicated, as PI in SRs in Germany might differ due to language barriers and organizational dissimilarities. For sharing and discussing stakeholders\' experiences in Germany, a workshop was facilitated. This paper summarizes the results of the workshop to elucidate stakeholders\' perspectives on key aspects of PI in SRs in Germany.
METHODS: A World Café was conducted at the 2023 conference of the Network for Evidence-based Medicine. Participants at all levels of experience could take part without prior registration. The data obtained was summarized narratively in an iterative process, and a framework of the topics discussed was developed.
RESULTS: 22 participants, predominantly researchers, took part. Participants formulated several general conditions for PI in SRs such as time and transparency. The majority of the tasks described referred to the application phase and the initial phase of a SR. The development of training and information materials in plain German language was deemed essential. The application phase of an externally funded SR and patient recruitment were considered as particularly challenging.
CONCLUSIONS: Several of the formulated aspects such as time and transparency are consistent with earlier work. The project start of a SR, however, has so far not been explicitly described in the literature as being of particular importance. This phase might be even more crucial to SR projects in Germany since researchers are expected to develop information materials for patients. Both the application phase and patient recruitment could be considered particularly challenging due to a lower degree of organisation of PI in Germany.
CONCLUSIONS: World Café participants described many aspects referring to the project start of a SR. This underlines that PI in SRs needs to be described as a process. A process model intertwining the phases of a SR with the respective phases of PI, ideally including best practices for each phase, could be of great value. With respect to the specific context in Germany, a greater degree of organization of PI, i.e. coordinated by an institution, could help to manage challenges such as patient recruitment.

Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis in which authors develop explicit eligibility criteria, collect all the available studies that meet these criteria, and summarize results using reproducible methods that minimize biases and errors. Systematic reviews serve different purposes and use a different methodology than other types of evidence synthesis that include narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews. Systematic reviews can address questions regarding effects of interventions or exposures, diagnostic properties of tests, and prevalence or prognosis of diseases. All rigorous systematic reviews have common processes that include: 1) determining the question and eligibility criteria, including a priori specification of subgroup hypotheses 2) searching for evidence and selecting studies, 3) abstracting data and assessing risk of bias of the included studies, 4) summarizing the data for each outcome of interest, whenever possible using meta-analyses, and 5) assessing the certainty of the evidence and drawing conclusions. There are several tools that can guide and facilitate the systematic review process, but methodological and content expertise are always necessary.

BACKGROUND: The demand for high-quality systematic literature reviews (SRs) for evidence-based medical decision-making is growing. SRs are costly and require the scarce resource of highly skilled reviewers. Automation technology has been proposed to save workload and expedite the SR workflow. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of SR automation studies indexed in PubMed, focusing on the applicability of these technologies in real world practice.
METHODS: In November 2022, we extracted, combined, and ran an integrated PubMed search for SRs on SR automation. Full-text English peer-reviewed articles were included if they reported studies on SR automation methods (SSAM), or automated SRs (ASR). Bibliographic analyses and knowledge-discovery studies were excluded. Record screening was performed by single reviewers, and the selection of full text papers was performed in duplicate. We summarized the publication details, automated review stages, automation goals, applied tools, data sources, methods, results, and Google Scholar citations of SR automation studies.
RESULTS: From 5321 records screened by title and abstract, we included 123 full text articles, of which 108 were SSAM and 15 ASR. Automation was applied for search (19/123, 15.4%), record screening (89/123, 72.4%), full-text selection (6/123, 4.9%), data extraction (13/123, 10.6%), risk of bias assessment (9/123, 7.3%), evidence synthesis (2/123, 1.6%), assessment of evidence quality (2/123, 1.6%), and reporting (2/123, 1.6%). Multiple SR stages were automated by 11 (8.9%) studies. The performance of automated record screening varied largely across SR topics. In published ASR, we found examples of automated search, record screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. In some ASRs, automation fully complemented manual reviews to increase sensitivity rather than to save workload. Reporting of automation details was often incomplete in ASRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Automation techniques are being developed for all SR stages, but with limited real-world adoption. Most SR automation tools target single SR stages, with modest time savings for the entire SR process and varying sensitivity and specificity across studies. Therefore, the real-world benefits of SR automation remain uncertain. Standardizing the terminology, reporting, and metrics of study reports could enhance the adoption of SR automation techniques in real-world practice.

UNASSIGNED: There have been numerous studies on NMDA receptors as therapeutic targets for depression. However, so far, there has been no comprehensive scientometric analysis of this field. Thus, we conducted a scientometric analysis with the aim of better elucidating the research hotspots and future trends in this field.
UNASSIGNED: Publications on NMDAR in Depression between 2004 and 2023 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Then, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, Scimago Graphica, and R-bibliometrix-were used for the scientometric analysis and visualization.
UNASSIGNED: 5,092 qualified documents were identified to scientometric analysis. In the past 20 years, there has been an upward trend in the number of annual publications. The United States led the world in terms of international collaborations, publications, and citations. 15 main clusters were identified from the co-cited references analysis with notable modularity (Q-value = 0.7628) and silhouette scores (S-value = 0.9171). According to the keyword and co-cited references analysis, treatment-resistant depression ketamine (an NMDAR antagonist), oxidative stress, synaptic plasticity, neuroplasticity related downstream factors like brain-derived neurotrophic factor were the research hotspots in recent years.
UNASSIGNED: As the first scientometric analysis of NMDAR in Depression, this study shed light on the development, trends, and hotspots of research about NMDAR in Depression worldwide. The application and potential mechanisms of ketamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) are still a hot research topic at present. However, the side effects of NMDAR antagonist like ketamine have prompted research on new rapid acting antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive investment, the development of effective treatments for Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) has been largely unsuccessful. To improve translation, it is crucial to ensure the quality and reproducibility of foundational evidence generated from laboratory models. Systematic reviews play a key role in providing an unbiased overview of the evidence, assessing rigour and reporting, and identifying factors that influence reproducibility. However, the sheer pace of evidence generation is prohibitive to evidence synthesis and assessment.
METHODS: To address these challenges, we have developed AD-SOLES, an integrated workflow of automated tools that collect, curate, and visualise the totality of evidence from in vivo experiments.
RESULTS: AD-SOLES is a publicly accessible interactive dashboard aiming to surface and expose data from in vivo experiments. It summarises the latest evidence, tracks reporting quality and transparency, and allows research users to easily locate evidence relevant to their specific research question.
METHODS: Using automated screening methodologies within AD-SOLES, systematic reviews can begin at an accelerated starting point compared to traditional approaches. Furthermore, through text-mining approaches within the full-text of publications, users can identify research of interest using specific models, outcomes, or interventions without relying on details in the title and/or abstract.
CONCLUSIONS: By automating the collection, curation, and visualisation of evidence from in vivo experiments, AD-SOLES addresses the challenges posed by the rapid pace of evidence generation. AD-SOLES aims to offer guidance for research improvement, reduce research waste, highlight knowledge gaps, and support informed decision making for researchers, funders, patients, and the public.

BACKGROUND: A significant body of literature suggests that exercise can reverse cognitive impairment and ameliorate somatic function in patients with Alzheimer\'s disease (AD). Systematic reviews (SRs), a common approach of evidence-based medicine, concentrate on a specific issue of a research area. The objective of this work is to provide an overview of existing evidence on the effects of exercise intervention in AD patients and report related health outcomes by reviewing SRs.
METHODS: SRs on exercise intervention in AD patients were retrieved from the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CBMdisc, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (via Ovid), China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases from the time of inception to February 2023. The quality of the SRs was evaluated utilizing the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist. The results were reported according to the population-intervention-comparison-outcome (PICO) framework and the corresponding evidence mapping was illustrated in tables and bubble plots.
RESULTS: A total of 26 SRs met the eligibility criteria. In terms of methodological quality, 10 SRs were rated as \"critically low\", 13 SRs were rated as \"low\", and 3 SRs were rated as \"moderate\". Exercise was found to exert a beneficial effect on cognitive function, functional independence, physical function, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with AD.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intervention benefits AD patients mainly by improving cognitive function, physical function, functional independence, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. However, due to the low-to-moderate methodology of most SRs included in this analysis, further investigations are required to support our current findings.