Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"The characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria in China between 1965 and 2023: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Qi Zhou,&nbsp;Hongfeng He,&nbsp;Qinyuan Li,&nbsp;Janne Estill,&nbsp;Zhengxiu Luo,&nbsp;Kehu Yang,&nbsp;Jinling Tang,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12624","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12624","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As a large and populous country, China releases a high number of diagnostic criteria. However, the published diagnostic criteria have not yet been systematically analyzed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria published in China.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched five databases for diagnostic criteria from their inception until July 31, 2023. All diagnostic criteria were screened through abstract and full-text reading, and included if satisfying the prespecified criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data on the characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 143 diagnostic criteria were included. In terms of development methods, the proportions of diagnostic criteria that involved a systematic literature search (<i>n</i> = 2; 1.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4% to 5.0%), adoption of formal consensus methods (<i>n</i> = 4; 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 7.0%), and criteria validation (<i>n</i> = 9; 6.3%; 95% CI, 3.3% to 11.5%) were relatively low. Regarding reporting quality, the average compliance with the ACCORD checklist was 5.1%; none of the diagnostic criteria reported on registration, expert inclusion criteria, expert recruitment process, or consensus results. A majority (58.7%; 95% CI, 50.6% to 66.5%) of criteria did not cite any research, and only one (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1% to 3.9%) criterion was derived from a systematic review. Moreover, only 16.1% (95% CI, 11.0% to 23.0%) of diagnostic criteria used evidence from the Chinese population.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The diagnostic criteria developed in China exhibit serious flaws, particularly in evidence retrieval, formation of expert panels, consensus methods, and validation. Additionally, only few diagnostic criteria used a systematic synthesis of the evidence or evidence from the China. There is an urgent need to enhance the methodology for developing diagnostic criteria.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"399-408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141468539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of hormone replacement therapy on all-cause and cancer-specific mortality in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and dose‒response meta-analysis of observational studies","authors":"Kefeng Liu,&nbsp;Yazhou He,&nbsp;Qiong Li,&nbsp;Shusen Sun,&nbsp;Zubing Mei,&nbsp;Jie Zhao","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12622","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12622","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The effect of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and all-cause mortality remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis to determine the effects of HRT on CRC mortality and all-cause mortality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for all relevant studies published until January 2024 to investigate the effects of HRT exposure on survival rates for patients with CRC. Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated the risk of bias between the studies using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale. We performed a two-stage random-effects dose–response meta-analysis to examine a possible nonlinear relationship between the year of HRT use and CRC mortality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Ten cohort studies with 480,628 individuals were included. HRT was inversely associated with the risk of CRC mortality (hazard ratios (HR) = 0.77, 95% CI (0.68, 0.87), <i>I</i>² = 69.5%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). The pooled results of seven cohort studies revealed a significant association between HRT and the risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.54, 0.92), <i>I</i>² = 89.6%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). A linear dose–response analysis (<i>p</i> for nonlinearity = 0.34) showed a 3% decrease in the risk of CRC for each additional year of HRT use; this decrease was significant (HR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.94, 0.99), <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). An additional linear (<i>p</i> for nonlinearity = 0.88) dose–response analysis showed a nonsignificant decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality for each additional year of HRT use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study suggests that the use of HRT is inversely associated with all-cause and colorectal cancer mortality, thus causing a significant decrease in mortality rates over time. More studies are warranted to confirm this association.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"377-389"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141468538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effectiveness of narrowband ultraviolet B monotherapy versus combination therapy with systemic agents in patients with early-stage mycosis fungoides and the association with plaque lesions","authors":"Yao Qin,&nbsp;Yuwei Lin,&nbsp;Zhuojing Chen,&nbsp;Qiuli Zhang,&nbsp;Yingyi Li,&nbsp;Yujie Wen,&nbsp;Ping Tu,&nbsp;Pei Gao,&nbsp;Yang Wang","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12623","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12623","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) has been recommended as first-line therapy for early-stage mycosis fungoides (MF) in international guidelines. NB-UVB can be used as monotherapy or part of a multimodality treatment regimen. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and optimal patients of NB-UVB in combination with systemic therapies in MF. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the combination versus NB-UVB monotherapy in early-stage MF and if plaque lesion status was related to these effects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This observational cohort study included 247 early-stage MF patients who had received NB-UVB combined with systemic therapies vs. NB-UVB monotherapy from 2009 to 2021. The primary outcome was partial or complete response. Overall response rate and median time to response were calculated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using the Cox model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In 139 plaque-stage patients, the response rate for combination therapy group was higher than that of monotherapy group (79.0% vs. 54.3%, <i>p </i>= 0.006). The adjusted HR for combination therapy compared with NB-UVB monotherapy was 3.11 (95% CI 1.72–5.63). The combination therapy group also showed shorter time to response (4 vs. 6 months, <i>p </i>= 0.002). In 108 patch-stage patients, the response rate and time to response in two treatment groups showed no significant difference. There was therefore an observed interaction with patients’ plaque lesion status for the effect size of NB-UVB combination therapy. No serious adverse events were observed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Adding systemic treatments to NB-UVB did not improve the treatment outcome of patch-stage patients, but it surpassed NB-UVB monotherapy for early-stage patients with plaques.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"390-398"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141427034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"MASTER scale for methodological quality assessment: Reliability assessment and update","authors":"Ashraf I. Ahmed,&nbsp;Muhammad Zain Kaleem,&nbsp;Amgad Mohamed Elshoeibi,&nbsp;Abdalla Moustafa Elsayed,&nbsp;Elhassan Mahmoud,&nbsp;Yaman A. Khamis,&nbsp;Luis Furuya-Kanamori,&nbsp;Jennifer C. Stone,&nbsp;Suhail A. Doi","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12618","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12618","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;In evidence synthesis of analytical studies, methodological quality (mQ) assessment is necessary to determine the extent to which internal validity safeguards are implemented in the included studies against a list of selected safeguards in an assessment tool. Such mQ tools consist of internal validity safeguards that are checked against those put in place by researchers when they undertake research to guard against systematic error in the design, conduct, and analysis of a study.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; However, consistency or agreement among the individuals undertaking an assessment of implemented safeguards in published research against those listed in a mQ tool needs to be documented to ensure that the tool is reliable. Therefore mQ tools need to have their interrater reliability tested in order to ensure the consistency of their use in research.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Many existing tools are available to assess mQ or risk of bias (RoB) specific to a study design, which leads to a lack of comparability across studies of different designs when using different tools and assessment results which, as a whole, may lack meaning. For example, Cochrane's Risk of Bias (RoB2) tool is used to assess the RoB in RCTs while nonrandomized trials are assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. It is difficult to compare these scales to one another, and hence, there is a need for a unified scale that is not confined to one study design. The MASTER scale was developed to overcome some of these issues by providing a comprehensive list of methodological safeguards across analytic study designs that allow for comparative assessment between these studies. It uses an assessment approach that takes the reviewer all the way from mQ assessment through to an ability to make use of this for bias adjustment.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3, 4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; A drawback for reviewers using the MASTER scale is that there is a lack of information regarding its reliability, with no studies conducted to assess this metric.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The degree to which studies maintain their relative position in a list over repeated measurements is referred to as reliability.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; For example, when assessing the reliability of a tool such as the MASTER scale, it would be considered reliable if you see that studies which scored well on the tool by the first rater also scored well on subsequent assessments by different raters.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5, 6&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; The scoring system for this scale has been discussed previously.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Such consistency across the individuals undertaking mQ assessment needs to be established to ensure that the tool is reliable across different raters. Researchers trained in clinical epidemiology were chosen for this study so that they could also examine the scale item wordings to remove ambiguity and improve the readability and applicability of the wording. This study therefore serves the dual purpose of evaluating the reliability of the MASTER scale across rat","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"263-266"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141306136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparation of fixed-ratio (IDegLira and iGlarLixi) versus free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis","authors":"Junling Weng,&nbsp;Ying Tao,&nbsp;Zian Xu,&nbsp;Shanyan Zhou,&nbsp;Dunming Xiao,&nbsp;Zhixu Zhu,&nbsp;Ruizhi Zheng,&nbsp;Yi Yang,&nbsp;Yingyao Chen","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12620","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12620","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed-ratio combination (FRC) and free combination of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 13, 2023. Phase III clinical trials involving FRC or free combination in patients with uncontrolled T2DM were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to evaluate the effects of FRC and free combination. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to evaluate the risk-of-bias. The primary outcomes were changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and incident hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023409585).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Forty-two trials with 23,619 patients were included in the NMA, and treatments were categorized as FRC, free combination and NOINSGLP (neither FRC nor free combination). The forest plots revealed comparable HbA1c control (mean difference (MD) = 0.07%, 95% confidence interval (CI): –0.17 to –0.30) between free combination and FRC. However, there were significant differences in the body weight (MD = –2.06 kg; 95% CI: –3.34 to –0.77), SBP (MD = –1.22 mmHg; 95% CI: –2.41 to –0.04), and DBP (MD = –1.09 mmHg; 95% CI: –1.94 to –0.24) between the two groups.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In patients with uncontrolled T2DM, the safety and efficacy of FRC and free combination therapy were comparable. The use of FRC is justifiable in patients requiring free combination.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"370-376"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141300827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Xin Wang,&nbsp;Mengcong Deng,&nbsp;Shangchun Wu,&nbsp;Qunxia Mao","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12619","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12619","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Existing evidence of the relationship between induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy has not been assessed rigorously. This systematic review provides a comprehensive evaluation to examine whether induced abortion (IA) can increase the rate of ectopic pregnancy (EP).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, WanFang, and Sinomed databases since their inception until February 2023. Eligibility criteria included case-control studies and cohort studies that analyzed induced abortion associated with ectopic pregnancy. Data analyses were conducted by using R-studio Version 1.1.383 software.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 33 case-control studies and 7 cohort studies involving 132,926 participants were included. In case-control studies, there was a significant association between induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy by using single-factor analysis data (OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.81–2.98). Subgroup analysis by region suggested no statistical significance in the Americas (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.92–1.43) and Eastern Mediterranean (OR = 3.64, 95% CI = 0.88–15.18). The relationship was significant by using multiple regression analysis data (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.38–2.80). In cohort studies, statistical significance was found (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.001–2.018) after omitting one study in sensitivity analysis. The combined results of the two types of studies suggested that induced abortion would increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy to some degree, but the conclusion needs to be considered with caution.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study indicated that IA could increase the risk of EP to some degree and the times of IA had a negative impact on the risk. Safe abortion and avoiding repeat abortion due to unintended pregnancy could protect women's fertility.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"360-369"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141300828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The fate of rejected manuscripts in different biomedical disciplines","authors":"Clovis M. Faggion Jr,&nbsp;Max C. Menne","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12617","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12617","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;A scientific journal may reject a submitted manuscript for several reasons. For example, desk rejection occurs when a topic is addressed that does not fit a journal's aims. Or the submitted manuscript has insufficient methodological quality. Therefore, authors need to manage manuscript rejection as a normal part of the publication process. Because methodological quality is not the only reason for rejection, authors will typically submit a rejected manuscript to another journal. This allows research authors to maintain efficiency and avoid wasted effort.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Actually, not attempting to publish research material due to one journal's rejection can be considered a form of publication bias.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The fate of rejected manuscripts has already been researched in different biomedical disciplines. However, the quality and characteristics of the studies assessing rejected manuscripts have not been performed. The aim of the present survey was to examine the characteristics of studies assessing the fate of rejected manuscript submissions in various biomedical disciplines and to provide manuscript rejection rates.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Studies assessing the fate of rejected manuscripts in different biomedical disciplines were included. Similar studies focused on other scientific disciplines were excluded. Only articles written in English were included. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched on 12 May 2024, and articles published from the database's inception to the date of search were considered for inclusion. The following keywords and Boolean operators were applied in a search of the database: “rejected manuscript” OR “rejected manuscripts” OR “rejected articles” OR “rejected papers.” Additionally, the reference lists of the articles included were scrutinized for further potential studies to include (Section S1). We selected articles based on the eligibility criteria. Those not meeting these criteria were excluded, first in a title/abstract assessment and then in a full-text assessment (Sections S2–S4, Figure S1).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reasons for exclusion were individually determined. When data on rejection rates were not reported, we calculated them by dividing the number of manuscripts submitted by the number of manuscripts rejected. The data were extracted into an Excel datasheet, and the included information is reported in Table 1. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate for 10 studies. After good agreement (more than 80%), the remaining process was performed by one author (M.C.M.).&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Data were presented as frequencies and percentages and, when applicable, as means and medians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A total of 36 studies meeting the eligibility criteria were found (Section S5). The most prevalent affiliation of the first author of the studies was the USA (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 17, 47%), followed by Italy and Switzerland (each &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3, 9%). The discipline of radiology ","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"259-262"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12617","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review","authors":"Louise Olsbro Rosengaard,&nbsp;Mikkel Zola Andersen,&nbsp;Jacob Rosenberg,&nbsp;Siv Fonnes","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12616","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12616","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The number of published journal articles has grown exponentially during the last 30 years, which may have led to some wasteful research. However, the terminology associated with research waste remains unclear. To address this, we aimed to identify, define, and categorize the aspects of research waste in published biomedical reports.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this scoping review, we systematically searched for biomedical literature reports from 1993 to 2023 in two databases, focusing on those addressing and defining research waste. Through data charting, we analyzed and categorized the aspects of research waste.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Based on 4285 initial records in the searches, a total of 832 reports were included in the analysis. The included reports were primarily narrative reviews (26%) and original reports (21%). We categorized research waste into five aspects: methodological, invisible, negligible, underreported, and structural (MINUS) research waste. More than half of the reports (56%) covered methodological research waste concerning flaws in study design, study conduct, or analysis. Invisible research waste covered nonpublication, discontinuation, and lack of data-sharing. Negligible research waste primarily concerned unnecessary repetition, for example, stemming from the absence of preceding a trial with a systematic review of the literature. Underreported research waste mainly included poor reporting, resulting in a lack of transparency. Structural research waste comprised inadequate management, collaboration, prioritization, implementation, and dissemination.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MINUS encapsulates the five main aspects of research waste. Recognizing these aspects of research waste is important for addressing and preventing further research waste and thereby ensuring efficient resource allocation and scientific integrity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"351-359"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12616","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141155046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reconciling conflicting evidence in the evaluation of the MitraClip system: Assessment of and response to the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials by key stakeholders","authors":"Manuela Montagnon,&nbsp;Yenfu Chen,&nbsp;Amy Grove,&nbsp;Jieun Park,&nbsp;Jean-François Obadia,&nbsp;Xavier Armoiry","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12614","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12614","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Two clinical trials (MITRA-FR and COAPT), which were set out to evaluate the effectiveness of adding percutaneous repair (PR) for patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR), came to very different conclusions. The MITRA-FR showed no benefit of PR,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; while the COAPT trial reported a dramatic improvement of clinical outcomes.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; We reviewed the assessment of and response to the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials by key stakeholders, whether regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, or authors of publications in medical journals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Briefly, a systematic literature search was conducted to identify documents that met the following criteria: (1) licensing/reimbursement decisions, clinical guidelines, and academic papers from top medical journals; (2) published between September 2018 and December 2023; (3) dealing with the conflicting evidence from the two trials. A total of 53 studies meeting our inclusion criteria over the period among our selected sources (details methods and details could be accessed by contacting the authors), reflecting the major controversy resulting from the publication of the two trials. The majority were authored by clinicians (46 out of 53) while five (9%) were elaborated by health services managers/HTA bodies, and two (4%) by regulatory agencies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The main factors highlighted as potential reasons for the conflicting results were differences in terms of patients’ echocardiographic characteristics (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 52), the concurrent control therapy (64%), and the rate of interventional procedure success (43%). Less frequently, document authors explained the divergence in findings by focusing on the definition and measurement of outcomes (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 9), or considering differences in the learning curve and/or the experience of operators (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 8). Only one document (2%) mentioned the difference between industrial and academic support as a potential explanation for the discrepancy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 51% of cases (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 27) (Table 1), authors were deemed to be in favor of the findings of COAPT when drawing conclusions while in 34% (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 18) of the documents, conclusions were equivocal with authors accepting the unexplained heterogeneity in the findings. Less frequently, the conclusions were that effectiveness depended on contextual factors (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5), or were not clearly drawn (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3). None of the selected documents seemed to favor the findings of the MITRA-FR trial. All six official documents, either originating from policymakers, managers of health services, or regulators, supported the findings of COAPT.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irrespective of their main conclusions, 26% (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 14) of authors suggested further research to be conducted, either mentioning the ongoing RESHAPE-2 RCT as an additional source of evidence or advocating for an individual-patient data meta-analysis based on the two trials (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4). In 34 cases (64%), analyses were carri","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"253-255"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12614","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141088118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among adults living with HIV in the eastern coast of Tanzania: A nested cross-sectional study","authors":"Goodluck G. Nyondo,&nbsp;Fredrick K. Msalenge,&nbsp;Frank A. Majaliwa,&nbsp;Erca Deograthias,&nbsp;Erick Philipo,&nbsp;Belinda J. Njiro,&nbsp;Emmanuel Mang'ombe,&nbsp;David T. Myemba,&nbsp;George M. Bwire","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12609","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jebm.12609","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":"17 2","pages":"247-252"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140860301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}