Trials registry records represent a challenge in deduplication compared to deduplicating studies reported in journals and exported from bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE. We demonstrate why this is the case and propose a method to deduplicate registry records from the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) specifically in the reference management tool EndNote (desktop version). We believe that our method is not only more efficient but that it will minimise the risk of registry records being incorrectly removed as duplicates in automated deduplication. The method has seven steps and is detailed in this tutorial as a step-by-step guide.

With the increasing volume of scientific literature, there is a need to streamline the screening process for titles and abstracts in systematic reviews, reduce the workload for reviewers, and minimize errors. This study validated artificial intelligence (AI) tools, specifically Llama 3 70B via Groq’s application programming interface (API) and ChatGPT-4o mini via OpenAI’s API, for automating this process in biomedical research. It compared these AI tools with human reviewers using 1,081 articles after duplicate removal. Each AI model was tested in three configurations to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. The Llama 3 model’s LLA_2 configuration achieved 77.5% sensitivity and 91.4% specificity, with 90.2% accuracy, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 44.3%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9%. The ChatGPT-4o mini model’s CHAT_2 configuration showed 56.2% sensitivity, 95.1% specificity, 92.0% accuracy, a PPV of 50.6%, and an NPV of 96.1%. Both models demonstrated strong specificity, with CHAT_2 having higher overall accuracy. Despite these promising results, manual validation remains necessary to address false positives and negatives, ensuring that no important studies are overlooked. This study suggests that AI can significantly enhance efficiency and accuracy in systematic reviews, potentially revolutionizing not only biomedical research but also other fields requiring extensive literature reviews.

Network meta-analysis allows the synthesis of relative effects from several treatments. Two broad approaches are available to synthesize the data: arm-synthesis and contrast-synthesis, with several models that can be fitted within each. Limited evaluations comparing these approaches are available. We re-analyzed 118 networks of interventions with binary outcomes using three contrast-synthesis models (CSM; one fitted in a frequentist framework and two in a Bayesian framework) and two arm-synthesis models (ASM; both fitted in a Bayesian framework). We compared the estimated log odds ratios, their standard errors, ranking measures and the between-trial heterogeneity using the different models and investigated if differences in the results were modified by network characteristics. In general, we observed good agreement with respect to the odds ratios, their standard errors and the ranking metrics between the two Bayesian CSMs. However, differences were observed when comparing the frequentist CSM and the ASMs to each other and to the Bayesian CSMs. The network characteristics that we investigated, which represented the connectedness of the networks and rareness of events, were associated with the differences observed between models, but no single factor was associated with the differences across all of the metrics. In conclusion, we found that different models used to synthesize evidence in a network meta-analysis (NMA) can yield different estimates of odds ratios and standard errors that can impact the final ranking of the treatment options compared.

The importance of network meta-analysis (NMA) methods for time-to-event (TTE) that do not rely on the proportional hazard (PH) assumption is increasingly recognized in oncology, where clinical trials evaluating new interventions versus standard comparators often violate this assumption. However, existing NMA methods that allow for time-varying treatment effects do not directly leverage individual events and censor times that can be reconstructed from Kaplan–Meier curves, which may be more accurate than discrete hazards. They are also challenging to implement given reparameterizations that rely on discrete hazards. Additionally, two-step methods require assumptions regarding within-study normality and variance. We propose a one-step fully Bayesian parametric individual patient data (IPD)-NMA model that fits TTE data with the exact likelihood and allows for time-varying treatment effects. We define fixed or random effects with the following distributions: Weibull, Gompertz, log-normal, log-logistic, gamma, or generalized gamma distributions. We apply the one-step model to a network of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating multiple interventions for advanced melanoma and compare results with those obtained with the two-step approach. Additionally, a simulation study was performed to compare the proposed one-step method to the two-step method. The one-step method allows for straightforward model selection among the “standard” distributions, now including gamma and generalized gamma, with treatment effects on either the scale alone or with multivariate treatment effects. Generalized gamma offers flexibility to model U-shaped hazards within a network of RCTs, with accessible interpretation of parameters that simplifies to exponential, Weibull, log-normal, or gamma in special cases.

Graphical displays are often utilised for high-quality reporting of meta-analyses. Previous work has presented augmentations to funnel plots that assess the impact that an additional trial would have on an existing meta-analysis. However, decision-makers, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom, assess health technologies based on their cost-effectiveness, as opposed to efficacy alone. Motivated by this fact, this article outlines a novel approach, developed for augmenting funnel plots, based on the ability of an additional trial to change a decision regarding the optimal intervention. The approach is presented for a generalised class of economic decision models, where the clinical effectiveness of the health technology of interest is informed by a meta-analysis, and is illustrated with an example application. The ‘decision contours’ produced from the proposed methods have various potential uses not only for decision-makers and research funders but also for other researchers, such as meta-analysts and primary researchers designing new studies, as well as those developing health technologies, such as pharmaceutical companies. The relationship between the new approach and existing methods for determining sample size calculations for future trials is also considered.

We developed a geographic search filter for retrieving studies about Germany from PubMed. In this study, we aimed to translate and validate it for use in Embase and MEDLINE(R) ALL via Ovid. Adjustments included aligning PubMed field tags with Ovid’s syntax, adding a keyword heading field for both databases, and incorporating a correspondence address field for Embase. To validate the filters, we used systematic reviews (SRs) that included studies about Germany without imposing geographic restrictions on their search strategies. Subsequently, we conducted (i) case studies (CSs), applying the filters to the search strategies of the 17 eligible SRs; and (ii) aggregation studies, combining the SRs’ search strategies with the ‘OR’ operator and applying the filters. In the CSs, the filters demonstrated a median sensitivity of 100% in both databases, with interquartile ranges (IQRs) of 100%–100% in Embase and 93.75%–100% in MEDLINE(R) ALL. Median precision improved from 0.11% (IQR: 0.05%–0.30%) to 1.65% (IQR: 0.78%–3.06%) and from 0.19% (IQR: 0.11%–0.60%) to 5.13% (IQR: 1.77%–6.85%), while the number needed to read (NNR) decreased from 893.40 (IQR: 354.81–2,219.58) to 60.44 (IQR: 33.94–128.97) and from 513.29 (IQR: 167.35–930.99) to 19.50 (IQR: 14.66–59.35) for Embase and MEDLINE(R) ALL, respectively. In the aggregation studies, the overall sensitivities were 98.19% and 97.14%, with NNRs of 83.29 and 33.34 in Embase and MEDLINE(R) ALL, respectively. The new Embase and MEDLINE(R) ALL filters for Ovid reliably retrieve studies about Germany, enhancing search precision. The approach described in our study can support search filter developers in translating filters for various topics and contexts.

When conducting overviews of reviews, investigators must measure and describe the extent to which included systematic reviews (SRs) contain the same primary studies. The corrected covered area (CCA) quantifies overlap by counting primary studies included across a set of SRs. In this article, we introduce a modification to the CCA, the weighted CCA (wCCA), which accounts for differences in information contributed by primary studies. The wCCA adjusts the original CCA by weighting studies based on the square roots of their sample sizes. By weighting primary studies according to their precision, wCCA provides a useful and complementary representation of overlap in evidence syntheses .