UNASSIGNED: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) to reduce intra-operative awareness (IOA) have reported conflicting results. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate results from RCTs to assess the efficacy of BIS in reducing IOA when compared to controls. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, time to spontaneous and/or verbal eye opening, PACU discharge time, and utilization of inhaled anesthetics.
UNASSIGNED: RCTs which reported on one of the primary and/or secondary outcomes were included. Literature search utilized keywords \"randomized control trial\" and \"intraoperative awareness.\" Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-seven RCTs were included in the study with a total of 35,585 patients, with 18,146 patients in the BIS and 17,439 in the control group. Eighteen of 14,062 patients (0.12%) and 42 of 16,765 (0.25%) reported definite IOA in the BIS and control group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. BIS was effective in reducing the time to spontaneous eye opening by an average of 1.3 minutes and the time to extubation by an average of 1.97 minutes. There was no difference in PACU discharge times among the groups. There was a significant decrease in consumption of sevoflurane but no difference in desflurane and propofol compared to the control group.
UNASSIGNED: While BIS monitoring results in decreased incidence of intra-operative awareness by half, it was not statistically significant. BIS provides modest benefits with regard to reducing the time to extubation, the time to spontaneous eye opening, and consumption of sevoflurane.Level of evidence: I.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence.
METHODS: In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated.
RESULTS: The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency.
UNASSIGNED: It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals.
CONCLUSIONS: The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired.

OBJECTIVE: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews of intervention studies. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting.
METHODS: We did a meta-research study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics.
RESULTS: We included 1172 systematic reviews of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for systematic reviews without meta-analysis was 17.5 out of a maximum of 23 and, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 22 out of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section was suboptimal. Systematic reviews that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies.

BACKGROUND: Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects.
METHODS: A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35-2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion.
CONCLUSIONS: Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: In pursuit of health equity, the World Health Organization has recently called for more extensive monitoring of inequalities in eye health. Population-based eye health surveys can provide this information, but whether underserved groups are considered in the design, implementation, and reporting of surveys is unknown. We conducted a systematic methodological review of surveys published since 2000 to examine how many population-based eye health surveys have considered underserved groups in their design, implementation, or reporting.
METHODS: We identified all population-based cross-sectional surveys reporting the prevalence of objectively measured vision impairment or blindness. Using the PROGRESS + framework to identify underserved groups, we assessed whether each study considered underserved groups within 15 items across the rationale, sampling or recruitment methods, or the reporting of participation and prevalence rates.
RESULTS: 388 eye health surveys were included in this review. Few studies prospectively considered underserved groups during study planning or implementation, for example within their sample size calculations (n = 5, ∼1%) or recruitment strategies (n = 70, 18%). The most common way that studies considered underserved groups was in the reporting of prevalence estimates (n = 374, 96%). We observed a modest increase in the number of distinct PROGRESS + factors considered by a publication over the study period. Gender/sex was considered within at least one item by 95% (n = 367) of studies. Forty-three percent (n = 166) of included studies were conducted primarily on underserved population groups, particularly for subnational studies of people living in rural areas, and we identified examples of robust population-based studies in socially excluded groups.
CONCLUSIONS: More effort is needed to improve the design, implementation, and reporting of surveys to monitor inequality and promote equity in eye health. Ideally, national-level monitoring of vision impairment and service coverage would be supplemented with smaller-scale studies to understand the disparities experienced by the most underserved groups.

BACKGROUND: Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master\'s students write as part of their master\'s theses.
METHODS: Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master\'s Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template.
METHODS: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0-10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language).
RESULTS: Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00).
CONCLUSIONS: SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a \'replication success.\' Here, we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and \'replication success\' can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately quantify the evidence for the absence of an effect and how they can be applied in the replication setting. Using data from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, the Experimental Philosophy Replicability Project, and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology we illustrate that many original and replication studies with \'null results\' are in fact inconclusive. We conclude that it is important to also replicate studies with statistically non-significant results, but that they should be designed, analyzed, and interpreted appropriately.

The objective of this study was the presentation of quantitative characteristics regarding the scientific content and bibliometric details of the relevant publications. In total, 156 papers were considered. Most papers presented original studies (n = 135), and fewer were reviews (n = 21). Most original articles (n = 101) referred to work involving cattle. Most original articles described work related to the diagnosis (n = 72) or pathogenesis (n = 62) of mastitis. Most original articles included field work (n = 75), whilst fewer included experimental (n = 31) or laboratory (n = 30) work. The tissue assessed most frequently in the studies was milk (n = 59). Milk was assessed more frequently in studies on the diagnosis (61.1% of relevant studies) or pathogenesis (30.6%) of the infection, but mammary tissue was assessed more frequently in studies on the treatment (31.0%). In total, 47 pathogens were included in the studies described; most were Gram-positive bacteria (n = 34). The three bacteria most frequently included in the studies were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 55 articles), Escherichia coli (n = 31) and Streptococcus uberis (n = 19). The proteomics technology employed more often in the respective studies was liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), either on its own (n = 56) or in combination with other technologies (n = 40). The median year of publication of articles involving bioinformatics or LC-MS/MS and bioinformatics was the most recent: 2022. The 156 papers were published in 78 different journals, most frequently in the Journal of Proteomics (n = 16 papers) and the Journal of Dairy Science (n = 12). The median number of cited references in the papers was 48. In the papers, there were 1143 co-authors (mean: 7.3 ± 0.3 co-authors per paper, median: 7, min.-max.: 1-19) and 742 individual authors. Among them, 15 authors had published at least seven papers (max.: 10). Further, there were 218 individual authors who were the first or last authors in the papers. Most papers were submitted for open access (n = 79). The median number of citations received by the 156 papers was 12 (min.-max.: 0-339), and the median yearly number of citations was 2.0 (min.-max.: 0.0-29.5). The h-index of the papers was 33, and the m-index was 2. The increased number of cited references in papers and international collaboration in the respective study were the variables associated with most citations to published papers. This is the first ever scientometrics evaluation of proteomics studies, the results of which highlighted the characteristics of published papers on mastitis and proteomics. The use of proteomics in mastitis research has focused on the elucidation of pathogenesis and diagnosis of the infection; LC-MS/MS has been established as the most frequently used proteomics technology, although the use of bioinformatics has also emerged recently as a useful tool.

BACKGROUND: Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), also known as exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD), is typically caused by strenuous and/or unaccustomed physical exercise. DOMS/EIMD manifests itself in reduced muscle strength and performance levels, increased muscle soreness, swelling, and elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers. Numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of a wide variety of physiotherapy interventions for reducing the signs and symptoms of DOMS/EIMD have been published. However, these SRs often arrive at contradictory conclusions, impeding decision-making processes.
OBJECTIVE: We will systematically review the current evidence on clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety) of physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of DOMS/EIMD in healthy adults. We will also assess the quality of the evidence and identify, map, and summarise data from the available SRs.
METHODS: Umbrella review with evidence map and meta-meta-analyses. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos and PEDro will be searched from January 1998 until February 2024. SRs of RCTs of any treatment used by physiotherapists (e.g., low-level laser therapy, electrical stimulation, heat/cold therapy, ultrasound, magnets, massage, manual therapies) to treat DOMS/EIMD in healthy adults will be eligible. Narrative/non-systematic reviews, studies of adolescents/children and medically compromised individuals, of complementary therapies, dietary, nutritional, or pharmacological interventions, as well as self-administered interventions, or those published before 1998, will be excluded. AMSTAR 2 will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included SRs. Corrected covered area, will be computed for assessing overlaps among included SRs, and an evidence map will be prepared to describe the credibility of evidence for interventions analysed in the relevant SRs.
CONCLUSIONS: DOMS/EIMD is a complex condition, and there is no consensus regarding the standard of clinical/physiotherapeutic care. By critically evaluating the existing evidence, we aim to inform clinicians about the most promising therapies for DOMS/EIMD. This umbrella review has the potential to identify gaps in the existing evidence base that would inform future research. The protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024485501].