scholarly journals The Value of Systematic Reviews

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
JP Neilson

In 2013, a workshop was held in Kathmandu that explored systematic reviews – what they are, how they are developed, how they are used in evidencebased clinical guidelines, and how they can inform the clinical research agenda. The workshop was funded by the Gates Foundation through FIGO, and organised by the Nepal Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 925-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Sacco ◽  
Rebecca Virata

The discontinuation of life sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) in severely and permanently impaired neonates, especially artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is subject to uncertainty and controversy. Definitive clinical guidelines are lacking, clinical research is limited, ethical disagreement is commonplace, and while case and statutory law provide legal underpinning for the practice in defined circumstances, uncertainty in this realm likely influences clinical practice. We use the case of a neurologically devastated neonate to highlight and review these arenas, and show how, using available legal, ethical, and clinical standards and practice, the case of Baby O was resolved, and to underline the need for further research in neonatal palliative care.


10.2196/22422 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. e22422
Author(s):  
Tomohide Yamada ◽  
Daisuke Yoneoka ◽  
Yuta Hiraike ◽  
Kimihiro Hino ◽  
Hiroyoshi Toyoshiba ◽  
...  

Background Performing systematic reviews is a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. Objective We investigated whether a machine learning system could perform systematic reviews more efficiently. Methods All systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventional randomized controlled trials cited in recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association (2 guidelines), and American Stroke Association were assessed. After reproducing the primary screening data set according to the published search strategy of each, we extracted correct articles (those actually reviewed) and incorrect articles (those not reviewed) from the data set. These 2 sets of articles were used to train a neural network–based artificial intelligence engine (Concept Encoder, Fronteo Inc). The primary endpoint was work saved over sampling at 95% recall (WSS@95%). Results Among 145 candidate reviews of randomized controlled trials, 8 reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. For these 8 reviews, the machine learning system significantly reduced the literature screening workload by at least 6-fold versus that of manual screening based on WSS@95%. When machine learning was initiated using 2 correct articles that were randomly selected by a researcher, a 10-fold reduction in workload was achieved versus that of manual screening based on the WSS@95% value, with high sensitivity for eligible studies. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve increased dramatically every time the algorithm learned a correct article. Conclusions Concept Encoder achieved a 10-fold reduction of the screening workload for systematic review after learning from 2 randomly selected studies on the target topic. However, few meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were included. Concept Encoder could facilitate the acquisition of evidence for clinical guidelines.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hae Lin Cho ◽  
Marion Danis ◽  
Christine Grady

Background/aims Sparse literature exists on the challenges and ethical considerations of including people with limited access to healthcare, such as the uninsured and low-income, in clinical research in high-income countries. However, many ethical issues should be considered with respect to working with uninsured and low-income participants in clinical research, including enrollment and retention, ancillary care, and post-trial responsibilities. Attention to the uninsured and low-income is particularly salient in the United States due to the high rates of uninsurance and underinsurance. Thus, we conducted a scoping review on the ethical considerations of biomedical clinical research with uninsured and low-income participants in high-income countries in order to describe what is known and to pinpoint areas of needed research on this issue. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using terms that described main concepts of interest (e.g., uninsured, underinsured, access to healthcare, poverty, ethics, compensation, clinical research). Articles were included if they met four inclusion criteria: (1) English, (2) high-income countries context, (3) about research participants who are uninsured or low-income, which limits their access to healthcare, and in biomedical clinical research that either had a prospect of direct medical benefit or was offered to them on the basis of their ill health, and (4) recognizes and/or addresses challenges or ethical considerations of uninsured or low-income participants in biomedical clinical research. Results The searches generated a total of 974 results. Ultimately, 23 papers were included in the scoping review. Of 23 articles, the majority (n = 19) discussed enrollment and retention of uninsured or low-income participants. Several barriers to enrolling uninsured and low-income groups were identified, including limited access to primary or preventive care; lack of access to institutions conducting trials or physicians with enough time or knowledge about trials; overall lack of trust in the government, research, or medical system; and logistical issues. Considerably fewer articles discussed treatment of these participants during the course of research (n = 5) or post-trial responsibilities owed to them (n = 4). Thus, we propose a research agenda that builds upon the existing literature by addressing three broad questions: (1) What is the current status of uninsured research participants in biomedical clinical research in high-income countries? (2) How should uninsured research participants be treated during and after clinical research? (3) How, if at all, should additional protections for uninsured research participants affect their enrollment? Conclusions This review reveals significant gaps in both data and thoughtful analysis on how to ethically involve uninsured research participants. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda to gather needed data and theoretical analysis that addresses three broad research questions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 892-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charissa C Naidoo ◽  
Georgina R Nyawo ◽  
Benjamin G Wu ◽  
Gerhard Walzl ◽  
Robin M Warren ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Haines ◽  
Leslie McKnight ◽  
Eric Duku ◽  
Lenora Perry ◽  
Achilleas Thoma

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document