Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Immune and stromal signaling networks in chordoma: an evidence-weighted review of ligand-receptor interactions and therapeutic implications.","authors":"Panpan Hu, Juncai Lei, Suiyong Du, Shengxin Zeng, Peilin Hua, Hua Zhou, Feng Wei","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03183-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03183-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This scoping review aimed to systematically map reported ligand-receptor (L-R) interactions in chordoma, classify the strength of supporting evidence, and integrate mechanistic, spatial, and clinical findings to inform translational prioritization.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2000-2024) identified original studies reporting L-R signaling in chordoma. Data on experimental models, signaling axes, functional assays, and clinical correlations were extracted using a predefined template. Evidence for each axis was graded as level A (causal/functional validation), level B (protein or spatial confirmation), or level C (inferred transcriptomic evidence). The review followed PRISMA-ScR and JBI scoping methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies met inclusion criteria. Ten recurrent signaling circuits were identified. Receptor tyrosine kinase pathways-EGF → EGFR and PDGF → PDGFR-were the most consistently validated, supported by multi-modal experimental evidence and limited clinical activity. IL-6 → IL-6R → STAT3 emerged as a stromal-immune-tumor axis with level A functional validation, linking CAF and macrophage activation to tumor invasion. TGF-β → TGFβR signaling and the newly defined ER-stress CAF-derived IER2 → GMFG → ITGB1 axis were supported by single-cell/spatial profiling with early functional evidence. PD-1/PD-L1 expression showed consistent prognostic correlations but lacked mechanistic validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review provides the first evidence-weighted map of intercellular signaling in chordoma. While RTK autocrine loops remain the most established, emerging cytokine- and CAF-mediated pathways highlight new biological mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. Bridging single-cell discovery with functional validation and clinical translation will be essential to advance microenvironment-directed therapies in chordoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147662516","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":"Methodologies for establishing and validating cut-points and comparative standards in medical imaging-based body composition analysis: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Alanood Aljanahi, Kathryn V Dalrymple, Eirini Dimidi, Erin Stella Sullivan","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03096-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03096-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical imaging-based body composition analysis (BCA) has shown promise in offering detailed, noninvasive assessments of fat, muscle, and bone, but challenges persist in establishing consistent comparative standards. Current studies reveal significant variability in methodologies, which limits comparability and clinical application. This highlights the need for a comprehensive review to explore these methodologies and address the gap in standardisation. The aim of the study is to identify and map the methodologies used in body composition imaging to establish and validate comparative standards (such as cut-points, thresholds, or normative values) and to catalogue the proposed comparative standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review will be conducted following JBI methodology. The following eligibility criteria will be applied: Population: healthy subjects with no major comorbidities or individuals with cancer assessed using body composition imaging (BCI) and concept: methodologies for establishing BCI comparative standards and/or formally validating them against any outcome or other BCA reference standard. This scoping review will consider studies across all clinical settings. There will be no restrictions on the setting or purpose of the original study. Validation studies using BCI as the reference standard will not be included unless the comparative standard being validated is another BCI feature. The electronic databases to be searched are Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore. Grey literature sources will not be included. Studies published in English will be considered, with no date restrictions applied. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by full-text articles, and will undertake data extraction. Data extracted will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic form for comprehensive narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The scoping review will summarise existing evidence on BCI. It will identify potential methodological gaps, describe current proposed thresholds or normative values, and highlight areas for further research to establish validated cut-points.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QZMN2.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147646274","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":"Clinical research on homeopathic preparations: protocol template for a series of systematic reviews.","authors":"Martin Loef, Robbert van Haselen, Stephan Baumgartner","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03168-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13643-026-03168-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical benefits of homeopathic preparations (HPs) used in anthroposophic medicine and homeopathy remain a topic of debate. Systematic reviews (SRs), with or without meta-analyses (MAs), that assess the literature in line with scientific standards and account for the complex nature of these interventions are lacking for many health conditions. This project aims to conduct SRs to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of HPs for selected patient populations, using a pluralistic approach that considers internal and model validity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This protocol follows PRISMA-P. A comprehensive literature search will include the HOMIS database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, LILACS, topic-specific sources, citation indices, trial registers, and grey literature, including preprint servers. Eligible studies will have a prospective, longitudinal design and include randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies published in various languages, evaluating HP interventions for efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety in health conditions preselected through expert consensus. All patient types, interventions, co-interventions, therapeutic goals, and comparison groups will be eligible. Research questions and outcomes will be developed with consideration of the patient perspective. Each SR will be conducted by a multidisciplinary team, supported by an advisory group. Risk of bias will be assessed using ROB-2 and ROBINS-I. Model validity and the efficacy-effectiveness spectrum will be evaluated using MVHT and RITES. Intervention complexity will be analyzed with an adapted iCAT_SR. Where meta-analysis is not feasible, a narrative synthesis following SWiM will be conducted; otherwise, quantitative synthesis will be performed. Certainty of evidence will be assessed using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This series of SRs and MAs will investigate the effects of HPs as complex interventions in healthcare and aims to establish an evidence base regarding their efficacy, effectiveness, and safety. By integrating assessments of internal and model validity and potential effect modifiers, the reviews aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions under which HPs may yield clinical benefits. In addition, the project may identify research gaps and methodological shortcomings to inform future studies.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD420251017029.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13081291/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147634319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predictive performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yingni Liang, Meiyan Luo, Jiayu Shen, Yanping Yang, Anran Dai, Zhuolian Zheng, Yinhua Su, Zhongyu Li","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03167-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03167-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent pregnancy complication that can pose numerous adverse health effects on both mothers and newborns. Accurate prediction of the risk of GDM serves as a valuable supplement to prenatal education and clinical decision-making. Compared with traditional prediction models, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have demonstrated higher predictive accuracy and stronger individualization capabilities. However, the application of AI models in GDM prediction is still in a developmental stage, and their performance and clinical utility have not been thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review and critically appraise the published predictive performance of AI models for GDM prediction and to offer insights for future research and practical application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search will be performed across six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and OVID). Screening of titles and abstracts, full-text review, and data extraction will be independently completed by two authors. Qualitative data on the characteristics of the included studies, methodological quality, and the applicability of models will be summarized through narrative descriptions and tabulated formats. For models with predictive performance data from multiple studies, a random-effects meta-analysis or meta-regression will be employed to synthesize the findings, considering potential heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Ethics and dissemination: </strong>Ethical approval is deemed not applicable for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings will be based on published literature, disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and presented at major conferences focused on clinical healthcare.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number CRD42025645913.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147634322","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":"Opioid prescribing practices in the U.S. and subsequent falls: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Viviane Isabelle Lovato, Maria Rocío Torres, Deborah Jean McClelland, Jeannie K Lee, Abdul Tawab Saljuqi, Bridget S Murphy","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03150-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03150-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Falls resulting from or related to opioid use are a major concern for morbidity and mortality in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States 2022 seeks to enhance the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment by improving function and quality of life for patients with pain while reducing opioid-related risks. The American College of Surgeons' Best Practices Guidelines in Geriatric Trauma Management and the 4 M's Framework of an Age-Friendly Health System both recommend incorporating fall prevention and safe mobility strategies into healthcare for older adults. In line with these guidelines and our review questions, this scoping review protocol aims to better understand the research on opioid prescribing practices and subsequent falls by identifying and mapping (1) the types of available evidence about opioid prescribing practices and subsequent falls and (2) the key characteristics of treatment and continuing care of falls with specific emphasis on opioid prescribing practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic database searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify evidence published in the United States from January 1, 2016, onward. This scoping review will consider primary literature, observational, quasi-experimental, and experimental, implementation, and quality improvement studies, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible studies will focus on adults aged 18 years and older who have been prescribed opioids and subsequently experienced a fall.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is a gap in our understanding about opioid prescribing and subsequent falls. This scoping review will help fill this gap by mapping the recent available evidence-aligned with clinical guidelines about (1) prescribing practices and subsequent falls and (2) key characteristics of the treatment and continuing care of falls.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework ID: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JP49Y. https://osf.io/jp49y.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147623711","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":"Meta-analyses in sport and exercise science: sometimes the right tool at the wrong time?","authors":"Sebastian Puschkasch-Möck, José Afonso, Konstantin Warneke, Klaus Wirth","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03148-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13643-026-03148-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meta-analysis is widely regarded as a high-level form of evidence in scientific research, particularly in the medical and life sciences. In sport and exercise science, the number of published meta-analyses has increased rapidly in recent years. This expansion raises important questions about when quantitative synthesis is appropriate and when meta-analysis may become the right tool at the wrong time. While meta-analysis offers a powerful tool for synthesizing data from multiple studies, it is crucial to apply appropriate methodology to ensure the validity of results.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this commentary is to clarify when meta-analysis is an appropriate method and when it risks providing misleading numerical precision, by critically discussing common methodological and interpretive pitfalls in sport and exercise science.</p><p><strong>Approach and results: </strong>It therefore examines common pitfalls in the execution and interpretation using exemplary meta-analyses published in sport and exercise science, focusing on issues such as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the selection of appropriate statistical models, and the challenges posed by methodological differences across studies. Clinical heterogeneity, including variations in study populations, interventions, and outcomes, is particularly problematic and requires careful consideration when defining inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, statistical heterogeneity, which refers to the variability in effect sizes across studies, necessitates the use of random-effects models and sensitivity analyses to account for the diversity of included studies. The choice of statistical methods and the potential impact of outliers can significantly influence meta-analytic conclusions, highlighting the need for rigorous analytical approaches. This commentary also emphasizes that meta-analysis should not always be the default method for synthesizing evidence, particularly when studies are excessively heterogeneous or of low quality. Rather than blindly aggregating data, researchers must critically assess whether a meta-analysis is warranted and if the findings can be meaningfully interpreted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, while meta-analysis is a valuable tool, its results should be carefully framed within the context of the studies included, acknowledging potential limitations and avoiding over-reliance on aggregated data.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13045103/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147609170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prevalence and determinants of polypharmacy among cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mohamed M Tawengi, Jawaher Baraka, Rafal Al Shibly, Mohammed I Danjuma","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03068-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03068-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polypharmacy (PP) is a rising clinical challenge among patients with a cancer diagnosis. Uncertainty remains regarding its exact burden, exact prevalence estimates, and definitional themes in this vulnerable cohort of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and Google Scholar, for studies published between 2000 and 2025 for eligible studies reporting on polypharmacy in cancer patients. These were critically appraised for eligibility and inclusion by two independent reviewers. Using quality and random effect models, pooled estimates of the prevalence of PP, prevalence by type of cancer, and geographical spread were determined. The prevalence rates of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were also estimated. Heterogeneity among the included studies was reported by corresponding I² estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analytical review involved 20 studies comprising (n = 102,100) participants. The overall pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patients with cancer was 29% (95% CI 10-52%) using the quality effects model, and 58% (95% CI 50-62%) using the random effects model. The overall heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I² = 100%, p < 0.001) for the random effects models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From this meta-analysis of studies with diverse designs, we found a high pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patient cohorts with cancer, with marked variability across studies. Given this level of heterogeneity, future prospective and systematic studies are needed to better characterize the determinants and consequences of polypharmacy to guide strategies that may improve patient outcomes in these cohorts.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, Number CRD42024576772.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147594600","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":"Living evidence syntheses for long COVID therapeutics: combining rigorous protocols to build efficiency while maintaining rigour.","authors":"Tiffany Atkins, Paul Glasziou, Samantha Chakraborty, Tari Turner, Gabriel Rada, Oyungerel Byambasuren","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03178-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03178-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the rapidly changing evidence, the creation and maintenance of a living systematic review database of therapeutics for long COVID is an ideal and necessary approach considering the rapidly changing evidence that continues to be identified. This paper describes methods and results of a collaboration between three teams who produced a living literature review on long COVID therapeutics-Australian Living Evidence Collaboration (ALEC), Bond University, and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L.OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We took a collaborative and iterative approach to analyse the commonalities and differences between each project and develop an agreed comprehensive, collective approach. A plan for ongoing (monthly) updates and dissemination was built.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite minor differences, there was also a clear alignment of goals between the three teams. Differences in search strategy, search methods and screening criteria were identified, investigated, and resolved. A comparison of overlaps helped establish a common collaborative approach. A combined library of 218 randomised controlled trials and 56 systematic reviews was created which led to the optimised search strategy. The combined 218 RCT library covered 20 different treatment categories of which 14 were pharmacological and 6 were non-pharmacological. Further refinements and collaborations led to a transformed initial database library of 102 randomised controlled trials as of June 2024 before the team commenced monthly updates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite initial differences, a comprehensive search strategy based on the collaboration of the three teams was developed. Ongoing monthly updates were initiated and are now planned for well into the future to make continual and rapid updates to the library of evidence surrounding therapeutics for long COVID. Where global public health is concerned, it is valuable to review and refine processes in the early stages, so that they can be reliable. We recommend open collaboration to achieve the goal of creating accessible, efficient, and reliable evidence syntheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147609210","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":"Co-designing interventions for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.","authors":"Hui Wen Lim, Anjali Bundele, Kee Fong Phang, Gim Gee Teng, Yee Wei Lim, Jennifer Sumner","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03152-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03152-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-designing interventions for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) can help optimise healthcare delivery and improve patient engagement in their care. We conducted a systematic review of co-designed interventions for people living with IA. We assessed the following: (a) Intervention effectiveness, (b) the co-design phases used, and (c) barriers and enablers to conducting a co-design study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) in October 2022, with an updated search conducted in March 2024. All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). The study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 11,091 reports, and 22 met the eligibility criteria. A range of co-designed interventions was identified, such as patient decision-making tools, applications for monitoring clinical and patient-reported outcomes, rehabilitation, and educational interventions. There was a paucity of psychosocial support interventions. All projects involved several stages of intervention development, including needs assessment, ideation, prototyping, and evaluation. Fifteen projects conducted pilot testing of their interventions, mainly assessing usability, feasibility, and acceptability metrics. Common barriers to co-design included poor communication, issues with stakeholder representativeness, and resource constraints. Key enablers of successful co-design were iterative rounds of prototyping and feedback, engagement of diverse stakeholders, and utilisation of varied and flexible methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Co-design is an adaptable approach for developing IA interventions and improving usability and feasibility through iterative, broad stakeholder engagement. However, its clinical effectiveness remains unproven, and common co-design barriers, such as communication challenges and limited stakeholder diversity persist. There is a need for more work on co-designed psychosocial support tools. Future work should also focus on establishing the clinical effectiveness of co-designed interventions to justify their continued development and implementation in IA care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147594631","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":"Knowledge, perspectives, and risk perceptions on gene drive and genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria control among African stakeholders: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Abou Sogodogo, Samba Diarra, Soumba Keita, Idiatou Diallo, Sarah Hartley, Nouhoum Telly, Housséini Dolo, Daouda Sanogo, Fousseyni Kané, Cheick Oumar Tangara, Mahamadou Diakité, Oumar Sangho, Kassoum Kayentao, Hannah Fritz, Peter J Winch, Seydou Doumbia","doi":"10.1186/s13643-026-03145-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13643-026-03145-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to understand the knowledge and perspectives of African stakeholders regarding the use of gene drive mosquitoes in malaria control.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The prospect of using gene drive and genetically modified mosquitoes as tools for malaria control is generating considerable debate, particularly with regard to its acceptance and implications among key stakeholders, as well as the nature of governance established in its management. This study aims to fill the gaps in understanding the views of African stakeholders on the risks associated with these mosquitoes.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include scientific articles and gray literature that explore the knowledge, perspectives, and risk perceptions of African stakeholders on the use of gene drive and genetically modified mosquitoes. Exclusions will apply to documents with restricted access, those addressing diseases other than malaria, and those involving stakeholders outside Africa.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search will be conducted across PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Google Scholar using index terms and keyword strategies tailored to each database. Documents will be selected in four stages: identification, duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text review for final inclusion. Screening will be conducted on Rayyan by two independent reviewers, with references managed in Zotero. Data extraction will include details on authorship, publication year, study objectives, design, methodology, sample size, findings, conclusions, and limitations. A thematic analysis of the extracted data will be conducted.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This scoping review will provide a clear understanding of the knowledge, perspectives, and risks perceived by African stakeholders regarding the use of gene drive and genetically modified mosquitoes in malaria control. The results will help to improve communities' engagement, which is crucial to the success of this technology.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://osf.io/4kz85).</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147594595","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}