Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR)","authors":"Andrew Dullea,&nbsp;Marie Carrigan,&nbsp;Lydia O'Sullivan,&nbsp;Isabelle Delaunois,&nbsp;Helen Clark,&nbsp;Martin Boudou,&nbsp;Martina Giusti,&nbsp;Kieran A. Walsh,&nbsp;Patricia Harrington,&nbsp;Susan M. Smith,&nbsp;Máirín Ryan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70074","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70074","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>PubReMiner is a text-mining tool that analyses a seed set of citations to assess word frequency in titles, abstracts, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and precision of search strategies developed using the PubReMiner tool compared to conventional search strategies developed by a librarian at our institution.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twelve consecutive reviews conducted at our center were included from September 2023 to January 2025. These reviews included various types of evidence synthesis, including rapid reviews and systematic reviews, covering a variety of topics. One librarian developed a comprehensive search strategy, which included a conventional MEDLINE search for each review. Separately, two librarians independently developed MEDLINE search strategies using PubReMiner-generated word frequency tables (PubReMiner 1 and PubReMiner 2). All search strategies were constructed by experienced librarians using predefined work instructions. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and precision. Secondary outcomes included the number needed to read, the number of unique references retrieved, and the time taken to construct each strategy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sensitivity of PubReMiner strategies was generally lower than that of conventional strategies; however, in one review, PubReMiner achieved a higher sensitivity (83.87%) than the conventional strategy (58.06%). Only the sensitivity outcome showed a statistically significant difference between search methods (Friedman test <i>p</i> = 0.0065). No statistically significant difference in precision between the searches was identified. PubReMiner strategies were typically faster to construct but yielded inconsistent performance across reviews and between librarians.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>While PubReMiner offers efficiency advantages, its inconsistent performance in retrieving relevant studies suggests that it should not replace conventional search strategies. The study illustrates the value of multi-review SWARs in producing evidence that informs evidence synthesis practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12915468/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146230274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review","authors":"Hilary Tier,&nbsp;Jana Verveer,&nbsp;David B. Anderson,&nbsp;Camila Quel De Oliveira,&nbsp;Nicci Bartley,&nbsp;Poonam Mehta,&nbsp;Rafael Z. Pinto,&nbsp;Arianne P. Verhagen,&nbsp;Alana B. McCambridge,&nbsp;Peter W. Stubbs","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70072","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70072","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Background&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Abstract spin involves misrepresenting or misreporting study findings in the abstract of an article. The abstract is the most easily accessible part of the article and may determine if an article is read, purchased or the findings are implemented into practice. Trials using new technologies, such as robotics, may be particularly vulnerable to spin due to the high costs associated with research and development.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Objective&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To identify and assess abstract spin in physiotherapy clinical trials investigating robotic interventions.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Design&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Meta-research review.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in August 2024 for two-armed clinical trials investigating robotic interventions compared to nonrobotic interventions, in any patient population. Article screening and data extraction were performed by two people independently. Quality assessment was performed using the PEDro scale with PEDro scores ≥ 6 deemed high quality. Abstract spin was assessed by two independent raters using a 7-item checklist. Spin items were scored “present,” “not present” or “not applicable.” Data were presented as counts and percentages.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We included 160 trials, of which 95% were in neurological physiotherapy and 61% of trials were high quality. Almost all trials (97%) contained at least one item of spin. Most often abstracts failed to mention adverse events (90%) or overenthusiastically interpretated non-significant (primary) outcomes (77%). One percent of abstracts clearly omitted negative primary outcomes, and 23% of abstracts recommended treatments without clinically important effects on the primary outcomes. These low spin percentages were due to many trials not reporting any negative finding and trials not providing a clinical recommendation in the abstract.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Ninety-seven percent of abstracts in trials investigating robotic interventions in physiotherapy contained spin. Academic journals should be conscious of the high prevalence of abstract spin in robotic trials and consider implementing stricter author guidelines or peer-review practices to ensure abstracts truly reflect the study findings.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12904089/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146204511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Promoting the Implementation of Co-Produced Cochrane Evidence: An Exploratory Study of Improving Partnering With Consumers","authors":"Bronwen Merner,&nbsp;Louisa Walsh,&nbsp;Janet Jull,&nbsp;Nora Refahi,&nbsp;Vasileios Tsialtas,&nbsp;Benjamin Shemesh,&nbsp;Mel Kotze,&nbsp;Rebecca Ryan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70071","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70071","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Co-production of evidence syntheses has the potential to facilitate translation of research findings into policy and practice. However, few studies have explored the process of implementing co-produced evidence. This gap limits our understanding of how, and to what extent, co-production promotes knowledge translation.</p>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this study, we used an implementation science lens to explore factors influencing the implementation of the Best Practice Principles in partnering with consumers (BPP) in hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. The BPP were developed as part of a co-produced Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis exploring consumers' and health providers' experiences and perceptions of partnering. We use the findings of our study to develop strategies for evidence synthesis teams engaged in co-production to optimize the implementation of their review findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This exploratory, qualitative study was informed by cooperative inquiry and normalization process theory (NPT). A six-member panel, including researchers, policy makers and consumers, guided data collection and analysis. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with eleven participants (including consumer engagement leads, consumer representatives, and a policymaker) about how to implement the BPP in Melbourne hospitals. Interviews were analyzed using framework analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Interview participants reported the BPP were relevant to practice, consumer-centered, practical, and flexible. There were several additional factors that could impact their uptake into practice. These included integration of the BPP into government policies and guidelines, evidence of the cost/benefit of BPP implementation, endorsement from health service leadership, involvement of consumers throughout the implementation process, a structured implementation, and flexible measurement of implementation success.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This exploratory study suggested that the BPP, a tool developed through a co-produced Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis, promoted knowledge translation. Other factors at the macro- (political and economic), meso- (systems and organizations), and micro- (individual) levels could influence the implementation's success. Implications for evidence synthesis teams aiming to optimize the knowledge translation of their review results are discussed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12865661/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146121488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to “Sensitivity Analysis in Meta-Analysis: A Tutorial”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70070","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70070","url":null,"abstract":"<p>N. M. Aung, I. Jurak, S. Mehmood, and E. Axon, “Sensitivity Analysis in Meta-Analysis: A Tutorial,” <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> 4 (2026): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70067.</p><p>The article category has been corrected from “METHODS ARTICLE” to “TUTORIAL.”</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850237/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146088712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Don't Stop Me Now, `Cause I'm Having a Good Time Screening: Evaluation of Stopping Methods for Safe Use of Priority Screening in Systematic Reviews","authors":"Tim Repke,&nbsp;Francesca Tinsdeall,&nbsp;Diana Danilenko,&nbsp;Sergio Graziosi,&nbsp;Finn Müller-Hansen,&nbsp;Lena Schmidt,&nbsp;James Thomas,&nbsp;Gert van Valkenhoef","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70068","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Priority screening has the potential to reduce the number of records that need to be annotated in systematic literature reviews. So-called technology-assisted reviews (TAR) use machine-learning with prior include/exclude annotations to continuously rank unseen records by their predicted relevance to find relevant records earlier. In this article, we present a systematic evaluation of methods to determine when it is safe to stop screening when using prioritization.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We implement an open-source evaluation framework that features a novel method to generate rankings and simulate priority screening processes for 81 real-world data sets. We use these simulations to evaluate 15 statistical or rule-based (heuristic) stopping methods, testing a range of hyperparameters for each.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The work-saving potential and performance of stopping criteria heavily rely on “good” rankings, which are typically not achieved by a single ranking algorithm across the entire screening process. Our evaluation shows that almost all existing stopping methods either fail to reliably stop without missing relevant records or fail to utilize the full potential work-savings. Only one method reliably meets the set recall target, but stops conservatively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Many digital evidence synthesis tools provide priority screening features that are already used in many research projects. However, the theoretical work-savings demonstrated in retrospective simulations of prioritization can only be unlocked with safe and reproducible stopping criteria. Our results highlight the need for improved stopping methods and guidelines on how to responsibly use priority screening. We also urge screening platforms to provide indicators and authors to transparently report metrics when automating (parts of) their synthesis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12825451/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146055756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review","authors":"Alex Todhunter-Brown,&nbsp;Jennifer Petkovic,&nbsp;Christine Chang,&nbsp;Ursula Griebler,&nbsp;Ailish Hannigan,&nbsp;Jennifer Hilgart,&nbsp;Basharat Hussain,&nbsp;Janet Jull,&nbsp;Christina Koscher-Kien,&nbsp;Dominic Ledinger,&nbsp;Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,&nbsp;Oyekola Oloyede,&nbsp;Eve Tomlinson,&nbsp;Shoba Dawson,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Sean Grant,&nbsp;Lyubov Lytvyn,&nbsp;Thomas W. Concannon,&nbsp;Leonila Dans,&nbsp;Denny John,&nbsp;Zoe Jordan,&nbsp;Evan Mayo-Wilson,&nbsp;Chris McCutcheon,&nbsp;Francesco Nonino,&nbsp;Danielle Pollock,&nbsp;Karine Toupin April,&nbsp;Pauline Campbell,&nbsp;Joanne Khabsa,&nbsp;Olivia Magwood,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70066","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Introduction&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Engaging interest-holders in health care evidence syntheses may make evidence syntheses more relevant, useful, and accessible. However, the best way(s) to engage interest-holders within the evidence synthesis process remain unknown. A previous scoping review collated 291 publications that reported interest-holder engagement in evidence syntheses, but conclusions were limited due to poor reporting. In the present scoping review, our aim was to identify and collate up-to-date publications focussed on interest-holder engagement in healthcare evidence syntheses, describe reported methods of engagement, and compare the results with those from the previous review.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We updated a scoping review, following JBI guidance, using a pre-published protocol that defined all key terminology in this field. We systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS). Searches were conducted from January 2016 to February 2024. Records were imported into Covidence and screened by pairs of independent reviewers, including any publications that reported engagement of interest-holders in evidence syntheses. We extracted and coded key data relating to the evidence synthesis topic and ACTIVE framework domains (who was engaged, when, and in what way). Two reviewers independently made a judgment of the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of engagement, using a “traffic-light” system, coding evidence syntheses with comprehensive descriptions as “green,” brief or partial descriptions as “amber,” and those with few details as “red”; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Additional detailed data relating to the engagement methods were extracted from “green” evidence syntheses. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Data were synthesized within tables, and narrative summaries were written to provide an overview of key methods of engaging interest-holders within the identified evidence syntheses.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We identified 302 publications published since the previous review. Most (272/302, 90%) reported interest-holder engagement in a single evidence synthesis; of these, 74% (200/272) engaged patients and/or their carers, while 17% (46/272) engaged other interest-holders only, and the remainder (26/272, 9.6%) was unclear. Over three-quarters of the evidence syntheses were conducted either in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, or Australia (215/272, 79%). Most often (113/272, 42%), interest-holders were engaged at both the initial (scope and question setting) &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; final (inte","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146016391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic Reviews as Part of Doctoral Theses and for the Promotion to Associate Professor: A Descriptive Study of University Policies in Sweden","authors":"Martin Ringsten,&nbsp;Lea Styrmisdottir,&nbsp;Matilda Naesström,&nbsp;Minna Johansson,&nbsp;Matteo Bruschettini,&nbsp;Susanna M. Wallerstedt","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70069","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70069","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Almost a decade ago, about half of biomedical PhD programs across Europe specifically stated that systematic reviews could not be accepted as part of a doctoral thesis, illustrating limited merit value at that time. The aim of this study was to explore current Swedish university policies on this research design.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Policy documents for PhD theses and applications to associate professor positions were obtained from all medical faculties at universities in Sweden. Instructions regarding systematic reviews, with focus on their merit value and related aspects, were independently extracted and categorized by two authors, with discrepancies resolved in consensus discussions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All seven medical faculties accepted at least one systematic review within a PhD thesis, five restricted the number of such studies accepted, and five provided instructions regarding this study design. Regarding policies for promotion to associate professor, six medical faculties accepted at least one published systematic review to merit recognition―the remaining one required meta-analyses for acceptance―and three explicitly restricted the number of systematic reviews. No restrictions or guidance were provided for other designs intended to answer specific research questions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As of 2025, systematic reviews appear to be generally recognized as contributing to authors' academic merit. For this research design exclusively, some universities impose restrictions that may limit their recognition, and some provide guidance which may help ensure quality in reporting. These findings may encourage research to evaluate the merit value of systematic reviews in other settings, and to examine potential implications of restrictions and guidance in policy documents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12806540/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146000321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Co-production Evaluation Tool Informed by Co-production Workshops for Use in Evidence Synthesis Contexts","authors":"Meena Khatwa,&nbsp;Vanessa Bennett,&nbsp;Rachael C. Edwards,&nbsp;Lisa Richardson,&nbsp;Phuong Tu Nguyen,&nbsp;Sajid Saleem,&nbsp;Sylvia Chaires,&nbsp;Alison O'Mara-Eves,&nbsp;Dylan Kneale","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70065","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.70065","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Aim&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We aimed to co-produce a tool for evaluating co-production within evidence syntheses.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Background&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Participatory approaches are recommended to enhance the salience and quality of evidence syntheses, and there is an increasing onus on co-producing evidence synthesis. Co-production is a way of working where research generators, beneficiaries and other interest holders work in equal partnership and for mutual benefit.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;div&gt;To develop our approach, we:\u0000\u0000 &lt;ul&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;li&gt;\u0000 &lt;p&gt;Examined selected existing tools and frameworks that could be useful in evaluating co-production&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/li&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;li&gt;\u0000 &lt;p&gt;Developed an initial tool that was then modified through input from co-production workshops&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/li&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;li&gt;\u0000 &lt;p&gt;Piloted the tool and evaluation approach in a project as part of research involving co-producing a logic model to support evidence syntheses.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/li&gt;\u0000 &lt;/ul&gt;\u0000 &lt;/div&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The existing tools guidance and resources we examined were deemed to be oriented towards supporting the conduct and reporting of co-production, rather than evaluating what happens and how. This provided a basis for co-producing a new tool. A new tool was developed that captures our perspectives on: positionality and expertise; motivations and expected benefits; clarity of role and expectations; project involvement and contributions; value and recognition; skills, knowledge, and personal growth; relationships and networking; comfort, support, and accessibility; and decision-making and power sharing. We reflected that the tool and process for administering the tool worked well, and we liked the process of collective sensemaking.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;We believe that the tool (which we refer to as the STRAPS tool – Synthesising Through Reflection And Participatory Sense-making) could provide a useful resource and starting point to other review teams who wish to evaluate co-production in their reviews and encourage others to share their experiences with us.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12782252/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145954696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sensitivity Analysis in Meta-Analysis: A Tutorial","authors":"Nyan Min Aung,&nbsp;Ivan Jurak,&nbsp;Seemab Mehmood,&nbsp;Emma Axon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70067","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial explains when systematic review authors may consider performing a sensitivity analysis in a meta-analysis. Such scenarios include removing studies at high risk of bias, exploring the effect of outliers and examining differences in study characteristics (e.g., participants’ age, study design). In addition, examples are provided, as well as advice on how to interpret and report the results. The tutorial also explains the differences between subgroup and sensitivity analyses, as well as describing the disadvantages of a sensitivity analysis. To support this tutorial, a link to an online module, which includes videos and quizzes, is also provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145909311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Responsible Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Rapid Reviews: A Position Statement From the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group","authors":"Gerald Gartlehner,&nbsp;Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,&nbsp;Candyce Hamel,&nbsp;Chantelle Garritty,&nbsp;Ursula Griebler,&nbsp;Valerie Jean King,&nbsp;Declan Devane,&nbsp;Chris Kamel","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70063","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used to accelerate literature review processes. A recent review and evidence map identified almost 100 studies published since 2021assessing AI applications in evidence synthesis [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. These technologies span from machine-learning classifiers to generative large-language models (LLMs). Recently, a preprint reported that a tool powered by LLMs autonomously reproduced and updated 12 Cochrane reviews in just 2 days [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;], sparking debate about when and how AI can be used safely and effectively to support systematic and rapid reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this position statement, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group outlines its stance on the use of AI in rapid reviews. Rapid reviews encompass various types of evidence synthesis, and while some AI tools have been developed for specific review types, such as qualitative evidence syntheses, most are designed for more general application across review methodologies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The main recommendations are summarized in Textbox 1. They complement a recently released position statement by Cochrane and other evidence synthesis organizations on the use of AI in evidence synthesis [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Semi-automation of discrete steps in the evidence synthesis process —where algorithms assist but do not replace human reviewers—is not new. Cochrane, for instance, was an early adopter with the development of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) Classifier, a machine learning tool that identifies RCTs during abstract screening [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;]. Semi-automation plays a different role in rapid reviews than in traditional systematic reviews, where methodological certainty is typically prioritized. Because rapid reviews already balance rigor and timeliness, teams may be more willing to adopt efficiency-enhancing tools sooner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The advent of generative LLMs, such as ChatGPT [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;] or Gemini [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;], has substantially expanded the potential for AI to support tasks in evidence synthesis. Unlike earlier machine learning tools that required extensive task-specific training data, LLMs can be deployed in zero-shot settings—meaning they can be applied without prior training or fine-tuning to a given task. This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry, offering a more accessible pathway for integrating AI into review workflows. Multiple studies have assessed the utility of generative LLMs to support the development of search strategies [&lt;span&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;], literature screening [&lt;span&gt;8-10&lt;/span&gt;], risk of bias assessment [&lt;span&gt;11, 12&lt;/span&gt;], and data extraction [&lt;span&gt;8, 13-15&lt;/span&gt;]. However, findings to date indicate highly variable performance ranging from high accuracy in some tasks to concerning errors in others [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. In parallel, developers of literature review software have begun integrating LLMs into their products.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Importantly, in rapid reviews, AI has the potential not only to enha","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"3 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145625659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}