Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

To inform implementation recommendations for novel or emerging technologies, Research Information Services at Canada's Drug Agency conducted a multimodal research project involving a literature review, a retrospective comparative analysis, and a focus group on 3 Artificial Intelligence (AI) or automation tools for information retrieval (AI search tools): Lens.org, SpiderCite, and Microsoft Copilot. For the comparative analysis, the customary information retrieval practices used at Canada's Drug Agency served as our reference standard for comparison, and we used the eligible studies of 7 completed projects to measure tool performance. For searches conducted with our usual practice approaches and with each of the 3 tools, we calculated sensitivity/recall, number needed to read (NNR), time to search and screen, unique contributions, and the likely impact of the unique contributions on the projects’ findings. Our investigation confirmed that AI search tools have inconsistent and variable performance for the range of information retrieval tasks performed at Canada's Drug Agency. Implementation recommendations from this study informed a “fit for purpose” approach where Information Specialists leverage AI search tools for specific tasks or project types.

Automation, including Machine Learning (ML), is increasingly being explored to reduce the time and effort involved in evidence syntheses, yet its adoption and reporting practices remain under-examined across disciplines (e.g., health sciences, education, and policy). This review assesses the use of automation, including ML-based techniques, in 2271 evidence syntheses published between 2017 and 2024 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the journals Campbell Systematic Reviews, and Environmental Evidence. We focus on automation across four review steps: search, screening, data extraction, and analysis/synthesis. We systematically identified eligible studies from the three sources and developed a classification system to distinguish between manual, rules-based, ML-enabled, and ML-embedded tools. We then extracted data on tool use, ML integration, reporting practices, motivations for (and against) ML adoption, and the application of stopping criteria for ML-assisted screening. Only ~5% of studies explicitly reported using ML, with most applications limited to screening tasks. Although ~12% employed ML-enabled tools, ~90% of those did not clarify whether ML functionalities were actually utilized. Living reviews showed higher relative ML integration (~15%), but overall uptake remains limited. Previous work has shown that common barriers to broader adoption included limited guidance, low user awareness, and concerns over reliability. Despite ML's potential to streamline evidence syntheses, its integration remains limited and inconsistently reported. Improved transparency, clearer reporting standards, and greater user training are needed to support responsible adoption. As the research literature grows, automation will become increasingly essential—but only if challenges in usability, reproducibility, and trust are addressed.

This tutorial focuses on trials that assess time-to-event outcomes. We explain what hazard ratios are, how to interpret them and demonstrate how to include time-to-event data in a meta-analysis. Examples are presented to help with understanding. Accompanying the tutorial is a micro learning module, where we demonstrate a few approaches and give you the chance to practice calculating the hazard ratio. Time-to-event micro learning module https://links.cochrane.org/cesm/tutorials/time-to-event-data.

Open access scholarly resources have potential to simplify the literature search process, support more equitable access to research knowledge, and reduce biases from lack of access to relevant literature. OpenAlex is the world's largest open access database of academic research. However, it is not known whether OpenAlex is suitable for comprehensively identifying research for systematic reviews. We present an approach to measure the utility of OpenAlex as part of undertaking a systematic review, and present findings in the context of undertaking a systematic map on the implementation of diabetic eye screening. Procedures were developed to investigate OpenAlex's content coverage and capture, focusing on: (1) availability of relevant research records; (2) retrieval of relevant records from a Boolean search of OpenAlex (3) retrieval of relevant records from combining a PubMed Boolean search with a citations and related-items search of OpenAlex, and (4) efficient estimation of relevant records not identified elsewhere. The searches were conducted in July 2024 and repeated in March 2025 following removal of certain closed access abstracts from the OpenAlex data set. The original systematic review searches yielded 131 relevant records and 128 (98%) of these are present in OpenAlex. OpenAlex Boolean searches retrieved 126 (96%) of the 131 records, and partial screening yielded two relevant records not previously known to the review team. Retrieval was reduced to 123 (94%) when the searches were repeated in March 2025. However, the volume of records from the OpenAlex Boolean search was considerably greater than assessed for the original systematic map. Combining a Boolean search from PubMed and OpenAlex network graph searches yielded 93% recall. It is feasible and useful to investigate the use of OpenAlex as a key information resource for health topics. This approach can be modified to investigate OpenAlex for other systematic reviews. However, the volume of records obtained from searches is larger than that obtained from conventional sources, something that could be reduced using machine learning. Further investigations are needed, and our approach replicated in other reviews.