Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Effectiveness of self-management interventions in managing cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity in cancer survivors: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Mubei Yang, Agnes Y Lai, Gary Tse, Qiaohong Yang, Wai Man Wong, Xianliang Liu","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03188-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03188-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advancements in cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, have increased survival rates. However, these treatments have side effects, such as cardiotoxicity, which significantly impact cancer survivors' cardiovascular health and quality of life (QoL). Thus far, despite a limited amount of related literature, preliminary evidence suggests that patients can benefit from self-management. This systematic review aims to explore the effectiveness of self-management interventions in managing cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity and improving cardiovascular health and QoL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers will independently appraise, extract, and synthesize data from eligible studies published in the last 20 years (January 2004 to November 2024) obtained through comprehensive literature searches in databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Only English-language studies will be included. Study quality will be assessed using the JBI appraisal tool. Studies will be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using software R 4.3.3 or summarized in narrative format. The certainty of the evidence will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite the high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with cancer treatment, little is known about the effectiveness of self-management strategies on improving cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity. Currently, there is no systematic review or structured guidance focused on self-management for cancer survivors. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of self-management interventions in managing cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity and improving cardiovascular health in cancer survivors.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024621854.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147781816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"To include or not to include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning-assisted screening in systematic reviews.","authors":"Rinus G Verdonschot, Tinne Dilles, Caitriona Cahir, Marjan De Graef, Renata Vesela Holis, Juliane Fryden, Petra Denig, Tamasine Grimes, Fatma Karapinar-Carkıt, Marieke Schor","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03185-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03185-y","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Systematic reviews are essential for evidence-based decision-making, but the screening stage is often labor-intensive and susceptible to human error. Machine learning (ML) approaches, including active learning (AL), have increasingly been used to support title and abstract screening. One such approach is the SAFE procedure, which has been proposed to guide the use of AL-assisted screening in systematic reviews. However, evidence on how well this procedure performs in large, heterogeneous datasets generated by broad search strategies remains limited. This study therefore evaluates the effectiveness and reliability of AL-assisted screening with particular focus on the SAFE procedure. Specifically, it examines the comprehensiveness and necessity of the recommended SAFE procedure, assesses the influence of different labeling strategies, and investigates whether AL-assisted screening can help reduce manual screening errors.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Screening of four large, heterogeneous datasets from medication management systematic reviews was simulated using ASReview. The datasets ranged from 3475 to 16218 records. For these datasets 0.08 to 1% of records were included in the final systematic review. Our simulations systematically varied all parameters defined by the SAFE procedure. Recall versus sampling behavior was analyzed, with a focus on the impact of parameter choices on retrieving records selected for full text inclusions and on reducing the number of records to be screened.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;AL-assisted screening can effectively reduce the number of records to screen by almost 90% without increasing the risk of missing relevant records in comparison to manual screening. For three of the four datasets, the best performance was achieved with the SAFE procedure combined with the elas-u4 and elas-h3 models and full-text labeling. Under these conditions, ASReview identified all studies included after full-text review and reduced the screening workload by 89-90%. In practical terms, this means that screening only 10-11% of the original records was sufficient to identify all final included studies in these datasets. This parameter combination identified 87% of the studies ultimately included after full-text review in the remaining dataset (16,218 records; 0.6% included at title/abstract screening and 0.08% included after full-text review). For this dataset, the best performance, identifying all studies included after full-text review while reducing the screening workload by 90%, was achieved when using the SAFE procedure with the simpler Naive Bayes model, the TF-IDF feature extractor, and title/abstract labeling.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;AL-assisted screening can safely and effectively reduce the workload needed to screen the large, heterogeneous datasets common in medication management systematic reviews. We recommend the modified SAFE procedure using full-text labels and the elas m","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147781769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and facilitators of oral health care utilization among pregnant women: a mixed-methods systematic review.","authors":"Lekshmi Subramaniam, Parvathy Balachandran, Chandrashekar Janakiram","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03151-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03151-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Oral health is an important yet often neglected aspect of antenatal care. Despite evidence linking poor maternal oral health with adverse pregnancy outcomes, pregnant women underutilize dental services due to individual, cultural, and systemic barriers. This is the first systematic review using mixed-methods approach that synthesized quantitative and qualitative evidence on this topic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported per PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those exploring barriers and facilitators to dental service utilization among pregnant women. Searches across six databases and grey literature sources were conducted. Quantitative data were qualitized and integrated with qualitative findings using JBI's convergent integrated approach. Findings were reported based on Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The review included 55 studies (37 quantitative, 17 qualitative, 1 mixed-methods) from 24 countries. Eight key themes based on Andersen's Behavioral model emerged. Barriers included misconceptions, safety concerns, dental treatment fear, high costs, lack of insurance coverage, poor referral systems, limited provider training, competing priorities, and cultural taboos. Facilitators included higher education, employment, urban residence, and provider support.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This is the first systematic review offering a comprehensive synthesis of the multifaceted barriers and facilitators shaping pregnant women's decisions to seek oral care. It integrated global prevalence data from quantitative studies with the lived experiences of pregnant women through qualitative studies. Andersen's model enabled structured interpretation of individual, contextual, and health-related determinants.</p><p><strong>Recommendations: </strong>It is important to develop culturally sensitive and integrated strategies to enhance maternal oral health service utilization across diverse settings. Policies should mandate integration of oral health into antenatal care, expand dental insurance for pregnant women, and enhance interprofessional training. Further research should explore longitudinal patterns, develop validated tools, and address intersectional disparities in access.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42025642722.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147729887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating health service delivery frameworks for assessing community health worker performance in LMICs: a mixed-method systematic review protocol.","authors":"Upadhyay Kritika, Goel Sonu, Sharma Aayushi","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03182-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03182-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Community health workers (CHWs) are essential to delivering primary healthcare, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they extend critical services to underserved populations. Despite global recognition of their role in advancing Universal Health Coverage (UHC), efforts to comprehensively evaluate CHW performance through standardized, context-sensitive frameworks remain limited. Current frameworks vary widely in scope, methodology, and applicability, often lacking in comprehensive domains, indicators, and validation processes. This mixed-method systematic review aims to identify, analyze, and synthesize existing performance assessment frameworks for CHWs, focusing on their components, contextual applicability, strengths, and limitations in LMIC settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed-method systematic review (MMSR) has been prepared according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Three electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using a string of keywords shall be used to capture qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies published in English between 2015 and 2025. Eligible studies will focus on frameworks evaluating CHW performance in LMICs. Screening and selection will be conducted in Covidence software by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. The included studies will be assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A convergent segregated approach will be applied for quantitative and qualitative synthesis followed by their integration of evidence in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The review has been registered in the PROSPERO database.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review is expected to yield a comprehensive understanding of the frameworks used to assess CHW performance in LMICs, including common domains and indicators, variations across contexts, and gaps in current performance evaluation strategies. Findings will inform policymakers, program implementers, and researchers on the development or adaptation of more effective, evidence-based, and context-sensitive performance assessment frameworks for CHWs.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024616947.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147730056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition among older adults with sarcopenia: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Dianis Wulan Sari, Hidayat Arifin, Trihaningsih Puji Astuti, Vira Amelia, Nurul Hidayati, Tiara Octary, Yoko Hasegawa, Takeo Minematsu","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03184-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03184-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sarcopenia and malnutrition are closely interrelated geriatric syndromes that significantly contribute to frailty, functional decline, and increased mortality in older adults. Although a growing body of evidence suggests a strong association between these conditions, reported prevalence rates and associated risk factors remain highly variable across studies. While previous systematic reviews have explored aspects of sarcopenia and malnutrition, they have often been limited to specific populations, focused on either condition separately, or have not provided a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of malnutrition among older adults with sarcopenia. Therefore, this study is to systematically estimate the pooled prevalence of malnutrition and identify its associated risk factors specifically among older adults with sarcopenia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in six electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies will be included if they assess malnutrition using validated tools in adults aged 60 years or older with sarcopenia. No restrictions will be applied regarding geographic region, language, or publication year. Eligible study designs include observational, longitudinal, and randomized controlled trials. Data will be analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 4.0. A generalized linear mixed model will be employed, specifically meta-regression, to account for multiple levels of data. A random-effects model will be used to pool effect sizes and estimate the overall prevalence of malnutrition and its associated risk factors among older adults with sarcopenia.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review will offer a comprehensive synthesis of the prevalence and risk factors of malnutrition in sarcopenic older adults, addressing current gaps in the literature. The findings are expected to support evidence-informed practices and guide future research and clinical decision-making related to nutritional care and sarcopenia management in aging populations.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZQCVA.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147730012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pemafibrate for hypertriglyceridemia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy and safety outcomes.","authors":"Muhammad Abdullah Masood, Muhammad Abdul Muqtadir Qureshi, Hafiz Shahbaz Zahoor, Adina Arshad, Ayesha Nazakat","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03186-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03186-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR-α) modulator, has been investigated for its effects on triglyceride (TG) levels and adverse events, particularly hepatic, renal, and musculoskeletal complications. This meta-analysis evaluates the safety and efficacy of pemafibrate across different doses and statin-use conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of pemafibrate on triglyceride levels and the incidence of adverse events, including hepatic, renal, and musculoskeletal complications, in a pooled population from multiple studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating pemafibrate's effects on TG levels and adverse events. Primary outcomes included overall TG levels, TG levels with and without statins, and adverse events. A total of 11,547 participants were included, with subgroup analyses for hepatic, renal, and musculoskeletal adverse events (n = 10,648), TG levels with and without statins (n = 11,210), and dose-dependent effects of pemafibrate (n = 509). Statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine RCTs were included. Pemafibrate was associated with reductions in triglyceride (TG) levels compared with placebo (SMD -0.87; 95% CI -1.07 to -0.67; p = 0.00001), supported by moderate-certainty evidence. Subgroup analyses suggested greater TG reductions in patients not receiving statins (SMD -1.31; 95% CI -1.62 to -1.00) and those receiving statins (SMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.66), both high-certainty evidence. No clinically meaningful difference was observed between 0.2 and 0.4 mg doses (high-certainty evidence). Regarding safety, pemafibrate was associated with a slight increase in renal adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Musculoskeletal and hepatic adverse events did not appear to differ from placebo (moderate-certainty evidence), while overall adverse events were similar (high-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Pemafibrate appears to reduce triglyceride levels, with high-certainty evidence for subgroup comparisons and moderate-certainty evidence overall. Safety outcomes were generally similar to placebo, although a small increase in renal adverse events warrants careful monitoring. Dose-comparison findings are based on limited data and should be considered hypothesis-generating. Overall, pemafibrate may have a lipid-modifying effect, but clinical implications remain uncertain, and further large, long-term studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147729974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in pediatrics: a systematic review.","authors":"Nasir Amanat, Seyed Hossein Hosseini, Reza Habibisaravi, Mojgan Gholitabar Omrani","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03110-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03110-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccine-preventable diseases remain among the top ten global health threats. These findings indicate an important link between health and vaccine literacy. Children are less affected by COVID-19 than adults are but can be particularly vulnerable in communities with inadequate and weak infrastructure. One in five parents was skeptical about the COVID-19 vaccine. The present study combined the findings of previous studies to identify the reasons for parental hesitancy related to children's COVID-19 vaccination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to investigate vaccine hesitancy among parents of children aged 0-18 years in the context of COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using the keywords \"vaccine hesitancy,\" \"pediatrics,\" and \"COVID-19\" for studies published between January 2019 and August 2024. Eligible studies were published in English and focused on parental perspectives. Two independent reviewers screened 2950 records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists. Thematic analysis identified key drivers of vaccine hesitancy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 48 full-text articles screened, 22 studies met the eligibility criteria. The included studies took place in 11 different countries. The thematic analysis resulted in two main headings: (1) vaccine-related concerns, which included safety/trust concerns (100% of studies) and accessibility barriers (13.6%), and (2) user-related concerns: risk perception (31.8%), lack of knowledge (50%), cultural manifestation (13.6%), and previous medical conditions (31.8%). Universal concerns about safety and trust were evident in all studies, while cultural and accessibility barriers were context-specific and fluctuated by region and population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study points to interventions for reversing parental hesitation towards pediatric COVID-19 vaccination, like tailored education programs, streamlining distribution procedures, creating public acceptance through local community opinion leaders, and appropriate risk communication by public health institutions. All of these can contribute to making sound policies and making future immunization planning easier.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147718247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Causal inference in real-world dementia research: a systematic review protocol.","authors":"Yi Yang, Shivani Suresh, Jiamin Du, Rachel Brohier, Hongen Ma, Ivan Koychev, Vanessa Raymont","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03179-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03179-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dementia presents complex challenges for causal inference due to its multifactorial aetiology and slow, heterogeneous progression. Randomized controlled trials are often limited in their potential to fully address these challenges because of ethical and practical constraints. As the field evolves, observational studies incorporating advanced causal inference methods are increasingly used to estimate real-world effects in dementia research. However, the implementation of these methods varies widely and has not been systematically evaluated, with an emerging trend towards integration with techniques such as machine learning. This systematic review will critically examine how causal inference techniques are applied in dementia research, assess their methodological rigor, and identify trends, assumptions, and gaps that may inform future applications and methodological innovation in the field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1960 and 2024. Eligible studies will include observational designs that use causal inference methods to investigate outcomes such as cognitive decline, disease progression, and quality of life. Data extraction will capture study characteristics, methodological details, and key findings, with risk of bias assessed using ROBINS-I. A narrative synthesis will summarize qualitative results, and meta-analyses will be performed when methodological homogeneity permits.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review will address a critical gap in the evaluation of the application of causal inference methods in real-world dementia research. By identifying methodological challenges, underlying assumptions, and emerging analytical techniques, it aims to strengthen research rigor and reproducibility and inform future methodological development, with potential implications for policy and practice in dementia care.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024619228).</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147718238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Optimizing document retrieval using massive text embeddings and LLM prompt engineering.","authors":"Goran Mitrov, Boris Stanoev, Vladimir Trajkovik, Biljana Risteska Stojkoska, Lasko Basnarkov, Petre Lameski, Martin Kampel, Eftim Zdravevski","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03155-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03155-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rapid expansion of digital data poses a unique challenge for retrieving relevant and insightful information efficiently. In particular, the increasing volume of scientific publications has made literature reviews time-consuming. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) offers new opportunities to streamline this process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper explores the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for query reformulation and evaluates the performance of nine massive text embedding models, varying in size and fine-tuning strategies, in the context of document retrieval. We apply multiple prompt engineering techniques to evaluate the ability of LLMs to generate effective queries, comparing them with human-crafted queries. These are used to retrieve documents utilizing nine embedding models. The evaluation is across five datasets using metrics such as recall, average precision, and rank-based measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results show that embedding models fine-tuned for semantic similarity consistently outperform general-purpose models, with UAE Large proving most robust across diverse domains. Furthermore, queries generated using zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques often surpass the performance of human-formulated queries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings highlight the value of integrating LLMs and massive text embeddings to reduce manual effort in literature reviews. GenAI provides a reliable starting point for query formulation, with human input reserved for refinement when needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147692200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of overall survival across treatment modalities for oesophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancer: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Fani Apostolidou-Kiouti, Anna Bettina Haidich, Dimitris Mavridis, Aikaterini Ioanna Apostolaki, Dimitris Tsavdaris, Adriani Nikolakopoulou","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03175-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03175-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancers of the oesophagus, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and proximal stomach share epidemiological, molecular, and therapeutic characteristics. Despite their similarities, treatment guidelines vary, and the classification of GEJ tumours remains debated. While multiple meta-analyses have addressed subsets of these malignancies, a comprehensive synthesis comparing all treatment modalities across this disease spectrum is lacking. This study aims to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the overall survival outcomes of different treatment modalities, including surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, and multimodal approaches, in patients with oesophageal, GEJ, and gastric cancers.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>We will conduct a systematic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) without date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eligible treatments will be included. The primary outcome will be overall survival, defined as time from diagnosis to death from any cause. Secondary outcomes will include progression-free survival, disease-specific survival, dropout rates, treatment-related adverse effects, patterns of relapse, R0 resection rates, surgical morbidity, and mortality. We will look for individual patient data (IPD) from primary studies' authors and registries. We will assess risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias RoB2 tool. We plan to present each pairwise comparison with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals from random-effects meta-analysis. A random-effects NMA model will simultaneously compare all treatments in the network. We will rank interventions using P-scores. In case we manage to access IPD and we believe the transitivity assumption does not hold for a specific comparison (or we have a disconnected network), we will use population adjustment methods to estimate an indirect treatment comparison. We will apply CINeMA to assess confidence in the findings and we will report results according to PRISMA-NMA.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Neoplasms of the oesophagus, the gastroesophageal junction, and the stomach are increasingly being studied together in clinical trials, a trend driven by continuous research on their molecular characteristics and shared therapeutic patterns. This NMA aims to pool evidence employing recent advances in meta-analytic models and critically assess the confidence in the results by implementing the CINeMA approach.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025634169).</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147692206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}