Oral and Parenteral versus Parenteral Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: An Intervention Review with Meta-Analysis

This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy of parenteral and oral antibiotic prophylaxis compared to parenteral-only prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer resection. Published and unpublished randomized clinical trials comparing the use of oral and parenteral prophylactic antibiotics versus parenteral-only antibiotics in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were collected searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, SCIENCE CITATION INDEX EXPANDED) without limits of date, language, or any other search filter. The outcomes included SSIs and other infectious and noninfectious postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2). A total of six studies involving 2252 patients were finally included, with 1126 cases in the oral and parenteral group and 1126 cases in the parenteral-only group. Meta-analysis results showed a statistically significant reduction of SSIs (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.72; p < 0.0001) and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91; p = 0.02) in the group of patients receiving oral antibiotics in addition to intravenous (IV) antibiotics compared to IV alone. Our meta-analysis shows that a combination of oral antibiotics and intravenous antibiotics significantly lowers the incidence of SSI compared with intravenous antibiotics alone.

Translation and validation of PubMed and Embase search filters for identification of systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies in the field of first aid

Objective: The aim of this project was to validate search filters for systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies translated from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase syntax and used for searches in PubMed and Embase.com during the development of evidence summaries supporting first aid guidelines. We aimed to achieve a balance among recall, specificity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR).Methods: Reference gold standards were constructed per study type derived from existing evidence summaries. Search filter performance was assessed through retrospective searches and measurement of relative recall, specificity, precision, and NNR when using the translated search filters. Where necessary, search filters were optimized. Adapted filters were validated in separate validation gold standards.Results: Search filters for systematic reviews and observational studies reached recall of ≥85% in both PubMed and Embase. Corresponding specificities for systematic review filters were ≥96% in both databases, with a precision of 9.7% (NNR 10) in PubMed and 5.4% (NNR 19) in Embase. For observational study filters, specificity, precision, and NNR were 68%, 2%, and 51 in PubMed and 47%, 0.8%, and 123 in Embase, respectively. These filters were considered sufficiently effective. Search filters for intervention studies reached a recall of 85% and 83% in PubMed and Embase, respectively. Optimization led to recall of ≥95% with specificity, precision, and NNR of 49%, 1.3%, and 79 in PubMed and 56%, 0.74%, and 136 in Embase, respectively.Conclusions: We report validated filters to search for systematic reviews, observational studies, and intervention studies in guideline projects in PubMed and Embase.com.

Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed

Objective: Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods: Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results: The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed’s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions: The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.

Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014–2019

ObjectivesTo describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent.MethodsSurvey of primary trial reports, published 2014–2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.ResultsAmong 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001).DiscussionNot obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public’s trust in research.

A Class of Inexact Secant Algorithms with Line Search Filter Method for Nonlinear Programming

We propose a class of inexact secant methods in association with the line search filter technique for solving nonlinear equality constrained optimization. Compared with other filter methods that combine the line search method applied in most large-scale optimization problems, the inexact line search filter algorithm is more flexible and realizable. In this paper, we focus on the analysis of the local superlinear convergence rate of the algorithms, while their global convergence properties can be obtained by making an analogy with our previous work. These methods have been implemented in a Matlab code, and detailed numerical results indicate that the proposed algorithms are efficient for 43 problems from the CUTEr test set.

Laboratory animals search filter for different literature databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsycINFO

Systematic reviews are important tools in animal research, but the ever-increasing number of studies makes retrieval of all relevant publications challenging. Search filters aid in retrieving as many animal studies as possible. In this paper we provide updated and expanded versions of the SYRCLE animal filters for PubMed and Embase. We provide the Embase filter for both Embase.com and via Ovid. Furthermore, we provide new animal search filters for Web of Science (WoS) and APA PsycINFO via psycnet.apa.org and via Ovid. Compared with previous versions, the new filters retrieved 0.5–47.1% (19 references for PubMed, 837 for WoS) more references in a real-life example. All filters retrieved additional references, comprising multiple relevant reviews. A random sample from WoS found at least one potentially relevant primary study. These animal search filters facilitate identifying as many animal studies as possible while minimising the number of non-animal studies.

Online Platform for Visual COVID-19 Literature Interactive Discovery (Preprint)

BACKGROUND The rate of publication of COVID-19 literature is astonishing and the research is extremely varied. Innovative tools are needed to aid researchers to find patterns in this vast amount of literature to identify subsets of interest in an automated fashion. OBJECTIVE We present a new online software resource with a friendly user interface that allow users to query and interact with visual representations of relationships between publications. METHODS We publicly released an application called PLATIPUS (Publication Literature Analysis and Text Interaction Platform for User Studies) that allows researchers to search, filter, and sort literature supplied by COVIDScholar. This tool contains standard filtering capabilities based on authors, journals, high-level categories, and various research-specific details via natural language processing. At the center of the software is a visual interface that offers a variety of representations of data-driven clusters that dynamically update from a researcher’s query. RESULTS PLATIPUS is publicly available online and currently links to over 116,000 publications. This application has the potential to transform how COVID-19 researchers utilize public literature to enable their research. CONCLUSIONS The PLATIPUS application provides the end-user with a variety of ways to search and filter over one hundred thousand COVID-19 publications. CLINICALTRIAL N/A