Automation of literature screening using machine learning in medical evidence synthesis: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review protocol

Background Systematic review is an indispensable tool for optimal evidence collection and evaluation in evidence-based medicine. However, the explosive increase of the original literatures makes it difficult to accomplish critical appraisal and regular update. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to automate the literature screening procedure in medical systematic reviews. In these studies, different algorithms were used and results with great variance were reported. It is therefore imperative to systematically review and analyse the developed automatic methods for literature screening and their effectiveness reported in current studies. Methods An electronic search will be conducted using PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library databases, as well as literatures found through supplementary search in Google scholar, on automatic methods for literature screening in systematic reviews. Two reviewers will independently conduct the primary screening of the articles and data extraction, in which nonconformities will be solved by discussion with a methodologist. Data will be extracted from eligible studies, including the basic characteristics of study, the information of training set and validation set, and the function and performance of AI algorithms, and summarised in a table. The risk of bias and applicability of the eligible studies will be assessed by the two reviewers independently based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analyses, if appropriate, will also be performed. Discussion Automating systematic review process is of great help in reducing workload in evidence-based practice. Results from this systematic review will provide essential summary of the current development of AI algorithms for automatic literature screening in medical evidence synthesis and help to inspire further studies in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170815 (28 April 2020).

Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis

Background Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. Results Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42–62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37–54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods. Conclusion Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019125628 Graphical abstract

The use of social network analysis in social support and care: a systematic scoping review protocol

Background In recent decades, the literature on Social Network Analysis and health has experienced a significant increase. Disease transmission, health behavior, organizational networks, social capital, and social support are among the different health areas where Social Network Analysis has been applied. The current epidemiological trend is characterized by a progressive increase in the population’s ageing and the incidence of long-term conditions. Thus, it seems relevant to highlight the importance of social support and care systems to guarantee the coverage of health and social needs within the context of acute illness, chronic disease, and disability for patients and their carers. Thus, the main aim is to identify, categorize, summarize, synthesize, and map existing knowledge, literature, and evidence about the use of Social Network Analysis to study social support and care in the context of illness and disability. Methods This scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework with adaptations from Levac et al. and Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological guidance for conducting scoping reviews. We will search the following databases (from January 2000 onwards): PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO, and DARE. Complementary searches will be conducted in selected relevant journals. Only articles related to social support or care in patients or caregivers in the context of acute illnesses, disabilities or long-term conditions will be considered eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will screen all the citations, full-text articles, and abstract the data independently. A narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the main text and tables. Discussion The knowledge about the scientific evidence available in the literature, the methodological characteristics of the studies identified based on Social Network Analysis, and its main contributions will highlight the importance of health-related research's social and relational dimensions. These results will shed light on the importance of the structure and composition of social networks to provide social support and care and their impact on other health outcomes. It is anticipated that results may guide future research on network-based interventions that might be considered drivers to provide further knowledge in social support and care from a relational approach at the individual and community levels. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/dqkb5.

Where to prospectively register a systematic review

Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

Personal identification with artificial intelligence under COVID-19 crisis: a scoping review

Background Artificial intelligence is useful for building objective and rapid personal identification systems. It is important to research and develop personal identification methods as social and institutional infrastructure. A critical consideration during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is that there is no contact between the subjects and personal identification systems. The aim of this study was to organize the recent 5-year development of contactless personal identification methods that use artificial intelligence. Methods This study used a scoping review approach to map the progression of contactless personal identification systems using artificial intelligence over the past 5 years. An electronic systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore databases. Studies published between January 2016 and December 2020 were included in the study. Results By performing an electronic literature search, 83 articles were extracted. Based on the PRISMA flow diagram, 8 eligible articles were included in this study. These eligible articles were divided based on the analysis targets as follows: (1) face and/or body, (2) eye, and (3) forearm and/or hand. Artificial intelligence, including convolutional neural networks, contributed to the progress of research on contactless personal identification methods. Conclusions This study clarified that contactless personal identification methods using artificial intelligence have progressed and that they have used information obtained from the face and/or body, eyes, and forearm and/or hand.

Computerized cognitive training in people with depression: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background People with depression often present with concurrent cognitive impairment. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a safe and efficacious strategy to maintain or enhance cognitive performance in a range of clinical populations. However, its efficacy in people with depression and how it varies across populations and design factors are currently unclear. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception to 13 July 2021 for randomised controlled trials examining the efficacy of CCT vs any control condition on cognitive, mood, psychiatric symptoms, psychosocial, and daily functioning in adults with depression. Eligible samples include studies specifically targeting people with major depressive disorder as well as those with other diagnoses where at least 50% of the sample meets the clinical criteria for depression, with the exception of major psychiatric disorders or dementia. The primary outcome is change in the overall cognitive performance. Multivariate analyses will be used to examine the effect sizes on each outcome category as well as possible effect modifiers and correlations between categories. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis of narrowly defined CCT across clinical populations with depression. We aim to investigate not only whether CCT is efficacious for cognition, but also how such effects vary across design factors, what other clinically relevant outcomes might respond to CCT, and the extent to which they differ across populations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020204209

Oral care for intensive care unit patients without mechanical ventilation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Infection is a common problem and a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). According to published meta-analyses, oral care has been found to reduce the risk of nosocomial pneumonia, and has been recommended to improve the oral environment for patients in ICUs. However, relatively little information is available about the effects of oral care in patients without ventilatory support in ICUs. Therefore, this review proposes to evaluate the effectiveness of oral care in preventing pneumonia in non-ventilated ICU patients. Methods Eight databases will be searched for relevant literature, including four Chinese and four English online databases, from their inception to the protocol publication date. Records obtained will be managed and screened via Endnote X7. All literature will be selected following pre-established inclusion criteria by two independent review authors to obtain quality trials. The quality of the included records will be evaluated according to the “risk of bias table”, recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. All the data will be extracted by one author and checked by another. If there is any disagreement, a final agreement will be reached with a third reviewer via consultation. If there are missing data, the original authors will be emailed to ask for it. If enough data were collected, the data synthesis will be performed using Review Manager (RevMan5.3). Both a random effect model and a fixed effect model will be undertaken. A Bayesian meta-analysis will also be performed to estimate the magnitude of the heterogeneity variance and comparing it with the distribution using the WinBUGS software. Otherwise, the results will be reported narratively. The sources of heterogeneity will be determined using meta-regression and subgroup analysis if there is significant heterogeneity. A funnel plot will be used to assess publication bias if there are enough records included. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions will be followed throughout the system evaluation process. Conclusion This review will provide evidence of oral care for intensive care unit patients without mechanical ventilation to prevent nosocomial pneumonia. Trial registration PROSPERO Research registration identifying number: CRD42020146932

Fluctuation of bone turnover markers’ levels in samples of gingival crevicular fluid after orthodontic stimulus: a systematic review

Background The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) bone turnover markers (BTMs) concerning the physiology of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) and assess their potential contributions to regulating bone remodeling, that could prove useful in designing future approaches to modulating orthodontic tooth movement. Methods Multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to October 1st, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, observational studies of prospective and retrospective designs, and cross-sectional studies reporting on levels of BTMs in GCF were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed per the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0), whereas the risk of bias of the included cohort studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Results Five RCTs, 9 prospective cohort studies, and 1 cross-sectional study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was deemed as high for the RCTs and 4 of the prospective studies and moderate for the rest of the studies. The following biomarkers for bone formation were assessed: bone alcaline phosphatase (BALP), alcaline phosphatase (ALP), and osteocalcin (OC). For bone resorption, the following BTMs were assessed: deoxypyridinoline (DPD) and pyridinoline (PYD), N-terminal telopeptide (NTX), osteopontin (OPN), and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP). The follow-up period ranged mainly from baseline to 45 days, although one study had an expanded follow-up period of up to 16 months. The results of the included studies comparing different BTMs were heterogeneous and qualitatively reported. Conclusions Current evidence continues to support the potential for BTMs to provide clinically useful information particularly for adjusting or standardizing the orthodontic stimulus. The present systematic review has retrieved studies of high, overall, risk of bias, and has unveiled a substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity among included studies. Further data of the relationships between the clinical assays and the physiological or pre-analytical factors contributing to variability in BTMs’ concentrations are required. Systematic review registration CRD42020212056.

Quality of life and complications after nephron-sparing treatment of renal cell carcinoma stage T1—a systematic review

Background Despite the fact that nephron-sparing treatment is considered preferable from a surgical perspective patients’ quality of life (QoL) following different types of nephron-sparing treatments remains unclear. Purpose To investigate the quality of life and complications after nephron-sparing treatment of renal cell carcinomas of stage T1. Materials and methods A systematic search of six databases was carried out. We included studies that reported the quality of life and complications in patients aged 18 years or older following nephron-sparing treatment of renal cell carcinoma stage T1. The quality assessment was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies and the CASP Randomized Controlled Trial Checklist. Data were analyzed using a narrative approach. Results Eight studies were included, six of which investigated QoL after partial nephrectomy and two after ablation therapies. Seven studies reported complications. Three studies reported higher QoL scores after partial nephrectomy compared to radical nephrectomy. Two studies showed that QoL increased or returned to baseline levels up to 12 months following partial nephrectomy. One study reported a gradual increase in QoL after radiofrequency ablation, and one study reported that all patients recovered to baseline QoL following cryoablation. Across studies, we found a complication rate up to 20% after partial nephrectomy and up to 12.5% after ablation therapy. Conclusions The results of this systematic review suggest that nephron-sparing treatment appears to be superior or comparable to other treatment alternatives with regard to QoL outcomes. Additionally, based on the studies included in this review, partial nephrectomy appears to have a higher complication rate compared with ablation therapies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020155594

Mapping the prevalence and use of questionnaires to detect the neglected sexual side effects after prostate cancer treatment: a scoping review

Background Early prostate cancer (PCa) treatment interventions may leave men with debilitating sexual side effects, especially when not diagnosed or present at initial follow-up treatment. Men are often embarrassed to disclose their sexual dysfunction. This may lead to sexual side effects related to PCa treatment remaining untreated, adding to their burden of disability. This study was conducted to map the evidence on the prevalence of neglected sexual side effects (NSSE) after radical prostatectomy (RP) surgery or radiation treatment (RT) for PCa treatment and the reported use of questionnaires to identify such side effects. Methods This systematic scoping review’s search strategy involved searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. Guided by eligibility criteria, two independent reviewers conducted title, abstract and full-text screening. Data from the included studies were extracted. The review team explored the implications of the findings in relation to the research question and aims of the study. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included studies. This review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results Searches of the databases identified 1369 articles, with 23 eventually included for review. The prevalence of NSSE ranged between 0 and 78% in studies reporting on early PCa treatment of RP and RT patients. Orgasmic dysfunction (5–78%), penile curvature changes (10–15.9%) and penile length shortening (0–55%) similarly showed a low to moderate prevalence. Climacturia had low prevalence (4–5.2%) after RT and moderate prevalence (21–38%) after RP, whilst anejaculation had low to high prevalence (11–72%) after RT. No validated questionnaire was used to detect any NSSE after early PCa treatment. Studies mainly modified other questionnaires, and two studies used non-validated questionnaires to identify some NSSE. Participants in the included studies reported being inadequately informed about the possible sexual side effects of their treatment. Conclusion This study showed a low to a high prevalence of NSSE in men after RP and RT for early PCa treatment. Questionnaires helped detect individual NSSEs after PCa treatment but there is currently no evidence of a valid, reliable and comprehensive questionnaire to detect the NSSE collectively. Scoping review registration N/A