BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Safety of proton pump inhibitors: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.","authors":"Chao Wang, Huier Gao, Cheng Zhu, Yue Zhao, Yinpeng Qin, Yude Qian, Guodong Feng, Xinran Zhang, Ting Yuan, Fan He, Qianqian Dou, Bei Zhang, Mei Shu, Yi Zhang, Yishan Bu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114134","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been widely used for over 35 years. However, in recent decades, numerous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have been reported, with evidence often inconsistent and heterogeneous across studies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) to provide a contemporary review of the evidence for the safety of PPIs in patients using them for treating or prophylaxis, to summarise the outcome data, assess the methodological quality and rate the certainty of the evidence and to provide references for clinical decision-making and the subsequent formulation of evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an overview of reviews following the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guidelines. We identified SR/MAs regarding PPI safety through a search of multiple databases, including the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database and Wanfang Database (WanFang) on 6 December 2025 as well as Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library database on 7 December 2025. The participants were human populations who had been administered PPIs; the intervention groups used PPI-based regimens and the control group received different PPI regimens, no-PPIs, H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs), potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CAB) or placebo; the outcomes mainly included the specific ADRs associated with PPI use. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tool to assess the methodological quality of the included SR/MAs and employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the quality of evidence for the reported outcomes. The focus of the data presentation was descriptive, featuring detailed tabular presentations of characteristics and results at both the review level and the primary studies level.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of 940 studies were retrieved from various databases according to the search strategies. After eliminating duplicates and the screening process, 36 SR/MAs were finally included. Overall, there was a slight overlap (corrected covered area, CCA of 0.91%) in 483 primary studies included in the 36 SR/MAs. AMSTAR-2 evaluation results showed that 34 SR/MAs were of low quality, and the other two were of critically low quality. The GRADE evaluation results indicated that the certainty of evidence for all outcomes was <i>low</i> or <i>very low</i>. The use of PPIs might be associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) (relative risk (RR) 1.75, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.19), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.56), gastric cancers (GC) (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.00) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53). PPI therapy was associated with a higher recurrence rate of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> infection (CDI) (24% vs ","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148263287","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":"Quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision-making: a comprehensive systematic review and COSMIN quality appraisal.","authors":"Christin Hoffmann, Samuel Lawday, Vignesh Gopalan, Rados Keravica, Arwen Pieterse, Hilary Bekker, Denitza Williams, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Jennifer Hall, Kerry Avery, Val Snelgrove, Della Hopkins, Christie Cabral, Jane Blazeby, Shireen Hickey, Angus G K McNair","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114092","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveShared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of patient-centred care and major driver of healthcare policy, clinical practice and research globally. Widespread implementation of SDM is hindered by uncertainty about how to best measure decision-making processes. A seminal methodological review of SDM instruments published in 2018 identified widespread deficiencies in instrument quality and provided recommendations for improvement. This systematic review and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) quality appraisal aims to provide an update SDM instrument inventory, re-evaluated progress in the field and provided future direction for researchers, funders and policymakers. This systematic review and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) quality appraisal aims to provide an update SDM instrument inventory, re-evaluated progress in the field and provided future direction for researchers, funders and policymakers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic search of six databases (September 2017-December 2024) identified studies of instruments measuring the process of SDM. Instrument appraisal followed COSMIN guidelines in a three-step process: appraisal of the methodological quality of instruments and of the quality of the measurement properties of newly identified measures (steps i, ii). This informed the comprehensive best-evidence synthesis which included the data from the original review (step iii).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 127 studies were included describing the development and/or evaluation of 105 unique instruments to measure the process of SDM. Some 61 new instruments were identified since the last review, of which 35 (57%) were translations/revisions to existing ones. The best-evidence synthesis revealed positive results for internal consistency (72%), structural validity (75%) and intrarater reliability (50%), but also negative or unknown results for test-retest reliability (58%), content validity (54%) and intrarater reliability (50%), where evaluated. No single instrument consistently showed positive evidence across all relevant measurement properties. Evidence gaps for many properties remain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This updated inventory guides researchers, clinicians and policymakers to the most appropriate instrument for an intended context/population. There was a proliferation of new, primarily patient-reported measurement instruments, but no single instrument had sufficient evidence of measurement quality. Methods were aligned with the original review and applied the 2011 COSMIN checklist which was updated in 2024, although using a previous checklist version is unlikely to affect overall conclusions. We recommend an international consensus with key interest holders on preferred instrument(s) for further validation and future core measurement set for efficient evidence synthesis","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148263216","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":"Effectiveness and tolerability of pharmacological prophylaxis for migraine headaches: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Malahat Khalili, Faraidoon Haghdoost, Amin Liaghatdar, Kian Torabiardakani, Fatemeh Mahdian, Tal Levit, Sara Moradi, Ehsan Hedayati, Farzaneh Ahmadi, Sahar Khademioore, Tariq Atkin-Jones, Vivek Patil, Fatemeh Mirzayeh Fashami, Soheil Mehmandoost, Rachel J Couban, Kameshwar Prasad, Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad, Norman Buckley, Jason W Busse, Behnam Sadeghirad","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114222","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Migraine headaches are common and potentially disabling disorders, with several interventions available for prevention and symptom reduction. We explored the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of pharmacological prophylaxis for migraine through a network meta-analysis of randomised trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Our study design was a systematic review and network meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration CRD42023456915).</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials of prophylactic pharmacological interventions that enrolled adults diagnosed with chronic and/or episodic migraine headaches.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to 15 January 2026.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias and certainty evidence: </strong>Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0 and the certainty evidence was evaluated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model to compare the efficacy of interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 199 RCTs (47 420 participants). Overall, 29 trials (14.6%) were at low risk of bias; an adequate random allocation sequence generation was reported in 92 trials (46.2%), and missing outcome data was the most common limitation (110 trials, 55.3%). Compared with placebo, calcium channel blockers (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.96 to -0.60), moderate certainty), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies (MD -1.69 (95% CI -2.16 to -1.23), high certainty) and beta-blockers (MD -1.50 (95% CI -2.54 to -0.47), moderate certainty) were the most effective in reducing monthly migraine days. Moderate certainty evidence suggests beta-blockers (MD -1.31 (95% CI -1.76 to -0.85)), calcium channel blockers (MD -1.11 (95% CI -1.65 to -0.57)), anticonvulsants (MD -1.12 (95% CI -1.66 to -0.58)) and CGRP-targeted therapies (MD -0.76 (95% CI -1.49 to -0.02)) probably reduce monthly migraine attacks. However, moderate to high certainty evidence found that patients were more likely to discontinue calcium channel blockers (relative risk (RR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.88) and anticonvulsants (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29), compared with placebo.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, beta-blockers and CGRP-targeted therapies probably reduce migraine frequency and may be well-tolerated prophylactic options for migraine. Calcium channel blockers and anticonvulsants may also be effective for reducing migraine frequency but are less well tolerated by some patients.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023456915.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148155298","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":"Prediction models in clinical guidelines: a scoping review of clinical guideline guidance development documents.","authors":"Emilie de Kanter, Demy L Idema, Lotty Hooft, Karel G Moons, Robin W M Vernooij, Ewoud Schuit, Johanna A A Damen","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-114164","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Probability or risk outcome estimates tailored to individual patient characteristics can facilitate more personalised care, for example, regarding treatment. Yet, the uptake of prediction models in clinical guidelines is lacking. It is unknown whether documents or handbooks for clinical guideline development provide any specific guidance, similar to clinical treatments, for how to assess and incorporate prediction models in clinical guidelines. We performed this systematic review of clinical guideline development documents and handbooks to explore the methodology regarding searching, selecting, critically appraising and implementing prediction models in clinical guidelines to enhance their usability in decision-making.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive systematic search for clinical guideline development documents of organisations included in the Guidelines International Network members directory and identified additional handbooks via PubMed and the TRIP database in October 2024. Data extracted from the retrieved documents included organisational details, methods and recommendations and guidance for prediction model inclusion. A narrative synthesis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 84 guidance documents were included in the final extraction, with eight (10.5%) guidance documents mentioning specific guidance for prediction models or related terms such as prognostic models or risk prediction. The included guidance related to searching, selecting and critically appraising prediction models for inclusion in clinical guidelines. No guidance on model performance or selection between competing models was provided.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The minority of identified handbooks included guidance regarding appraising and deciding whether and how to include prediction models in clinical guidelines. The absence of such guidance underscores the need for more extensive and standardised methodology for incorporating prediction models in clinical guidelines. This could help facilitate implementation of models into clinical guidelines, clinical practice and eventually impact decision making and subsequently patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148052390","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":"CARE extension guideline for acupuncture case reports.","authors":"Yuting Duan, Zhirui Xu, Yongqi Zhang, Shujuan Liu, Juexuan Chen, Yaolong Chen, Nenggui Xu, Chunzhi Tang, Peijing Rong, Liming Lu, Yu Wang, Ye-Seul Lee, Tae-Hun Kim, David S Riley, Lin Shi, Myeong Soo Lee, Lin Yu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113641","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113641","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Existing reporting checklists lack the specificity and comprehensiveness required to effectively guide the documentation of acupuncture case reports. Therefore, we developed a reporting guideline tailored specifically for acupuncture case reports, building upon the CAse REport (CARE) statement. A multidisciplinary group of international experts including clinicians, researchers and methodologists was convened to draft the initial checklist in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. Through an extensive literature review and a series of expert interviews, the final CARE for acupuncture checklist comprised of 30 items. 38 experts from diverse disciplines participated in three rounds of modified Delphi surveys to refine and clarify these items. CARE for acupuncture is a comprehensive reporting guideline focused on acupuncture case reports developed with rigorous methodology. We hope that CARE for acupuncture will further guide authors, editors, peer reviewers and readers to enhance the transparency, completeness and accuracy of reporting of case reports in acupuncture.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"199-210"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144494545","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":"Comparative effects of early physical interventions on preventing intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic review and component network meta-analysis.","authors":"Kai-Mei Chang, Yu-Kang Tu, Chia-Rung Wu, Kath Peters, Lucie Ramjan, Wen-Hsuan Hou, Sen-Kuang Hou, Nguyen Thi Phuc, Hsiao-Yean Chiu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113476","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113476","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of early physical interventions on the prevention of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and the improvement of relevant clinical outcomes in patients with critical illness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception until 20 August 2024, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients ≥18 years old and implementing early physical intervention that commenced at any time point during mechanical ventilation (MV) use or within 7 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission for review. We synthesised data using a random-effects model and analysed through network meta-analysis (NMA) and component network meta-analysis (CNMA).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcome is the incidence of ICUAW. Secondary outcomes included Medical Research Council sum score, length of stay in the ICU or hospital, duration of MV and mortality rates in the ICU or hospital.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analyses included 63 RCTs involving 24 treatments and eight components. The NMA results revealed systematic early mobilisation (SEM) combined with neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), SEM alone and NMES alone may lead to a moderate to large reduction in the incidence of ICUAW (odds ratios [ORs]=0.03, 0.09 and 0.12, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]=0.00 to 0.42, 0.01 to 0.97 and 0.03 to 0.44, respectively) and improved relevant clinical outcomes compared with routine care. The CNMA results further indicated that SEM (OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.02 to 0.83) and NMES (OR=0.22, 95% CI=0.09 to 0.52) effectively mitigated the ICUAW incidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SEM and NMES are optimal interventions for preventing ICUAW. Healthcare providers in ICUs should implement early mobilisation with structured protocols and patient assessments or apply NMES to specific muscle groups to prevent ICUAW in critically ill patients and improve relevant clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024581173.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"178-188"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145285300","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":"Advancing shared decision-making towards social justice: insights into an intersectional and decolonial approach from a Brazil-Canada partnership.","authors":"Roberta de Carvalho Corôa, Eliane Chaves Vianna, Monica Vieira, Amédé Gogovor","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113590","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113590","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"143-147"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147697384","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":"Readers' attention to shorter versus longer abstracts of systematic reviews: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Jasmin Helbach, Kathrin Wandscher, Dawid Pieper, Falk Hoffmann","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113613","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113613","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>First, investigate whether a long compared with a short abstract decreases readers' attention. Second, investigate differences regarding perceptions of informativeness, accuracy, attractiveness and conciseness.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>Researchers worldwide who indexed any type of systematic review in PubMed with an English abstract between 1 January 2024 and 26 March 2024.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Researchers were randomly assigned to two groups. Both groups received the same cover letter by email with a link to our survey, which was assigned to either the short (277 words) or long abstract (771 words) of the same systematic review published in two different journals.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcome was the proportion of trial participation after reading the abstract, indicating readers' attention. Secondary outcomes were researchers' perceptions of four indicators of a well-written abstract (informativeness, accuracy, attractiveness, conciseness), and general abstract characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5397 authors were randomly assigned to the short (n=2691) or long abstract (n=2706). Trial participation did not differ between groups (37.8% vs 35.0%; p=0.1935). While the short abstract was considered more attractive (60.5% vs 46.6%; p=0.0034) and concise (82.3% vs 37.9%; p<0.0001), the length had no impact on its informativeness (85.5% vs 91.2%; p=0.0594) and accuracy (80.2% vs 86.3%; p=0.0868). Regarding general abstract characteristics, 76.0% preferred a maximum length of 250-300 words, nearly all a structured format and about half supported reporting funding and registration information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Abstract length had no impact on readers' attention, but short abstracts were considered more attractive and concise. Guidelines like PRISMA-A should recommend a range of 250-300 words for abstracts, allowing authors to include key information while prioritising clarity and precision. With authors considering information on funding and registration as important, journals should update their author guidelines to include these by default.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT06525805. <b>Funding</b> None.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"170-177"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145312387","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":"Understanding synthetic data: artificial datasets for real-world evidence.","authors":"Randi Foraker, Jon D Morrow, Julie A Johnson, Adam B Wilcox, Alan J Forster, Philip R O Payne","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113617","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113617","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"148-151"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144552073","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":"Co-production and implementation of an evidence collation strategy for a novel point-of-care information resource: gpevidence.org.","authors":"Julian Treadwell, Laura C Armitage, Kiana K Collins, Laura Heath, Olu Onyimadu, Mandy Payne, Azizia Wahedi, Kamal R Mahtani","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113715","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113715","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"211-215"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144667088","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}