BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Correction: Curcumin and proton pump inhibitors for functional dyspepsia: a randomised, double blind controlled trial.","authors":"","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112231corr1","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112231corr1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"358"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141309952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Hidden risks of predictive models in healthcare.","authors":"Joseph Alderman, Richard Riley, Dhruv Parekh, Charlotte Summers, Xiaoxuan Liu, Alastair Denniston","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113730","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145079749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is 'minimum' enough? Attending to the 'important' in clinically important differences.","authors":"Dinne Skjærlund Christensen, David Roe, Helene Speyer","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114167","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145032777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Role of overdiagnosis in the rising incidence of endometrial cancer: a population-based ecological study.","authors":"Behrad Barmayehvar, Alireza Behzadnia, Brian Nicholson, Per-Henrik Zahl, Jason Oke","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113688","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endometrial cancer (EC) incidence has been rising globally, while mortality has remained stable, particularly in Nordic countries. This study aimed to explore the role of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) use and overdiagnosis in these trends.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed crude and age-adjusted EC incidence and mortality rates by stage and age group using data from the Norwegian Cancer and Causes of Death Registries (1970-2019). Annual percentage changes (APC) in early-stage and late-stage cancers were estimated using linear regression. Trends were assessed with the Mann-Kendall test and Theil-Sen estimator. Spearman's correlation evaluated the relationship between regional TVUS billing rates and EC incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1970 to 2019, age-standardised EC incidence in Norway increased by 79% (16.7-30.0 per 100 000), with a five-yearly growth rate of 7.47% (p=0.020). Mortality remained stable until 2000-2004, with a non-significant drop from 5.0 to 2.75 per 100 000 by 2019 (Sen's slope: -0.20, p=0.15). In postmenopausal women, early-stage incidence rose by 73% (32.1-55.5 per 100 000) and late-stage diagnoses increased by 108% (7.0-14.6 per 100 000). In premenopausal women, early-stage incidence declined by 24% (3.3-2.5 per 100 000), while late-stage diagnoses rose by 189% (0.23-0.66 per 100 000). TVUS use rose from 7.6% to 8.3% annually (2006-2019). The APC in postmenopausal women was similar across stages, with the largest increase in those aged 70+ years. Evidence for TVUS driving early-stage diagnoses was not strong, although a weak correlation between the two was observed in postmenopausal women (r=0.35, p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overdiagnosis and stage migration may explain the rising EC incidence in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, overdiagnosis is less likely. TVUS is unlikely to be the main driver of the trends. Further research is needed to clarify the interplay of factors affecting EC trends globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144706306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing proposals to update established screening strategies.","authors":"Alison Huffstetler, Kenneth W Lin, Russell P Harris","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113025","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113025","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"215-218"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142124772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overcoming challenges in the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in China.","authors":"Dongmei Zhong, Nan Yang, Yaolong Chen, Dong Roman Xu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112896","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112896","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"219-221"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142457702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Melissa L Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, Lex M Bouter, Jamie J Kirkham, David Moher, Ana Patricia Ayala, David Blanco, Tara J Brigham, Holly K Grossetta Nardini, Shona Kirtley, Kate Nyhan, Whitney Townsend, Maurice Zeegers","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the impact of adding librarians and information specialists (LIS) as methodological peer reviewers to the formal journal peer review process on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches in the medical literature.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pragmatic two-group parallel randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three biomedical journals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted to <i>The BMJ</i>, <i>BMJ Open</i> and <i>BMJ Medicine</i> and sent out for peer review from 3 January 2023 to 1 September 2023. Randomisation (allocation ratio, 1:1) was stratified by journal and used permuted blocks (block size=4). Of 2670 manuscripts sent to peer review during study enrollment, 400 met inclusion criteria and were randomised (62 <i>The BMJ</i>, 334 <i>BMJ Open</i>, 4 <i>BMJ Medicine</i>). 76 manuscripts were revised and resubmitted in the intervention group and 90 in the control group by 2 January 2024.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>All manuscripts followed usual journal practice for peer review, but those in the intervention group had an additional (LIS) peer reviewer invited.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcomes are the differences in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups in the quality of reporting and risk of bias. Quality of reporting was measured using four prespecified PRISMA-S items. Risk of bias was measured using ROBIS Domain 2. Assessments were done in duplicate and assessors were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included differences between groups for each individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 item. The difference in the proportion of manuscripts rejected as the first decision post-peer review between the intervention and control groups was an additional outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches (4.4% difference, 95% CI: -2.0% to 10.7%) and risk of bias in searches (0.5% difference, 95% CI: -13.7% to 14.6%) showed no statistically significant differences between groups. By 4 months post-study, 98 intervention and 70 control group manuscripts had been rejected after peer review (13.8% difference, 95% CI: 3.9% to 23.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inviting LIS peer reviewers did not impact adequate reporting or risk of bias of searches in first revision manuscripts of biomedical systematic reviews and related review types, though LIS peer reviewers may have contributed to a higher rate of rejection after peer review.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"241-249"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320611/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143613194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Post-publication peer review and the identification of methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials: a qualitative study.","authors":"Mauricia Davidson, Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Carolina Riveros, Anna Chaimani, Isabelle Boutron","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113068","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113068","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to determine to what extent systematic reviewers and post-preprint and post-publication peer review identified methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials that could be easily resolved by the authors.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>COVID-NMA living systematic review (covid-nma.com), PubPeer, medRxiv, Research Square, SSRN.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-NMA that evaluated pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 and retrieved systematic reviewers' assessments of the risk of bias and outcome reporting bias. We also searched for commentary data on PubPeer and preprint servers up to 6 November 2023. We employed qualitative content analysis to develop themes and domains of methodological and reporting issues identified by commenters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 500 eligible RCTs. Systematic reviewers identified methodological and reporting issues in 446 (89%) RCTs. In 391 (78%) RCTs, the issues could be easily resolved by the trial authors; issues included incomplete reporting (49%), selection of the reported results (52%) and no access to the pre-specified plan (25%). Alternatively, 74 (15%) RCTs had received at least one comment on PubPeer or preprint servers, totalling 348 comments. In 46 (9%) RCTs, the issues identified by post-preprint and post-publication peer review comments could be easily resolved by the trial authors; the issues were related to incomplete reporting (6%), errors (5%), statistical analysis (3%), inconsistent reporting of methods and analyses (2%), spin (2%), selection of the reported results (1%) and no access to the raw data/pre-specified plan (1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Without changing their process, systematic reviewers identified issues in most RCTs that could be easily resolved by the trial authors; however, the lack of an established author feedback mechanism represents a wasted opportunity for facilitating improvement and enhancing the overall manuscript quality. On the other hand, despite the existing feedback loop to authors present in post-publication peer review, it demonstrated limited effectiveness in identifying methodological and reporting issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"233-240"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320597/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143466997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of a generalised tool for evaluating success of clinical practice guidelines implementation (A-GIST).","authors":"Kun Zou, Nan Yang, Siyi He, Linan Zeng, Hailong Li, Liang Huang, Qiusha Yi, Xiangyu Gao, Jiajun Ren, Mingyue Zhang, Qiang Wang, Lingli Zhang","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113308","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113308","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a generalised tool to evaluate the success of implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review, group brainstorming discussion and modified Delphi method.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A steering group (3 members) was assembled responsible for the guidance and ensuring stakeholder's involvement. A tool development group (24 members) of leading experts provided expertise in refining the frame and items during the development and participated in the Delphi process. And a secretary group (7 members) was responsible for the organization and coordination, systematic reviewing, drafting of the preliminary list of items, documenting and revising the tool according to the suggestions of the development group.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Four process stages were employed. First, the project was launched with core groups formed for the development. Second, based on the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework, a systematic review of existing methods for evaluating the success of CPGs implementation and a brainstorming discussion were conducted to form a preliminary list. Third, a modified Delphi method was organised, integrating a multidisciplinary face-to-face consultation meeting with two rounds of online Delphi consultations. Fourth, the tool was revised and finalised incorporating all expert suggestions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Development teams comprising multidisciplinary experts were formed. In the systematic review, 7 biomedical literature databases were searched, and 208 pieces of literature were included. After three rounds of brainstorming discussions on items identified in the literature, a 23-item preliminary list was produced. In the modified Delphi method, 14 experts made 23 main suggestions in the face-to-face meeting on the list. 13 experts participated in the first round of Delphi consultation, reached agreement on 20 items, removed 4 items and added 1 new item. 11 experts attended the second-round consultation and had an agreement to include 20 items after revision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Guideline Implementation Success Assessment Tool (A-GIST) was systematically developed as a comprehensive tool to assess the success of CPGs implementation. It comprises 5 dimensions, Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance, encompassing 20 items that integrate perspectives from both clinicians and patients. A-GIST is designed to facilitate evaluating, benchmarking and cross-comparison of implementation success between guidelines, facilities and regions. Additionally, it provides evidence-based insights to inform the development of targeted strategies for optimising guideline implementation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"250-258"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320590/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143960176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Incomplete reporting and spin in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.","authors":"Yuting Duan, Pinge Zhao, Yuening Deng, Zhirui Xu, Siqi Wu, Lin Shi, Feng Jiang, Shujuan Liu, Xinyu Li, Binbin Tang, Jinjin Zhou, Lin Yu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113364","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113364","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the reporting, data sharing and spin (using reporting strategies to emphasise the benefit of non-significant results) in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Eligible studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP Database between 1 January 2014 and 1 May 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed acupuncture RCTs used traditional medicine (TM), published in English or Chinese, two parallel arms for humans.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>We assessed (1) the reporting of acupuncture RCTs by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) checklist; (2) the data sharing level by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) data sharing statement; (3) spin frequency and level by the prespecified spin strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study evaluated 476 eligible studies, of which 166 (34.9%) explored the specific efficacy or safety of acupuncture in the nervous system, 68 (14.3%) in the motor system and 61 (12.8%) in the digestive system. 244 (57.7%) studies used conventional acupuncture, 296 (62.2%) used multicentre study design and 369 (77.5%) were supported by institutional funding. 312 (65.5%) eligible studies were poorly reported. The sufficiently reporting scores of the CONSORT 2010 statement and the STRICTA checklist differed from 0.63% to 97.5%, and 32 (59.3%) items were less than 50%. For the data sharing level of acupuncture RCTs, only 66 (17.2%) studies followed the ICMJE data sharing statement, but 49 (14.5%) need to require authors to obtain data, and only 5 (1.5%) provided data by open access. Spins were identified in 408 (85.7%) studies (average spin frequencies: 2.94). 59 (37.2%) studies with non-significant primary outcomes had spin levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study found that the reporting of acupuncture RCTs was low compliance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, the STRICTA checklist and the ICMJE data sharing statement, and spin appeared frequently. Journal policies on using reporting guidelines, data sharing and equitable consideration of non-significant results might enhance the reporting of acupuncture RCTs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>This study was registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF): (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2WTE6, and https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9XDN4,).</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"259-267"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12320602/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143779072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}