Importance Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate the labor-intensive process of systematic reviews. However, the exact methods and reliability remain uncertain. Objective To explore the feasibility and reliability of using LLMs to assess risk of bias (ROB) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design, Setting, and Participants A survey study was conducted between August 10, 2023, and October 30, 2023. Thirty RCTs were selected from published systematic reviews. Main Outcomes and Measures A structured prompt was developed to guide ChatGPT (LLM 1) and Claude (LLM 2) in assessing the ROB in these RCTs using a modified version of the Cochrane ROB tool developed by the CLARITY group at McMaster University. Each RCT was assessed twice by both models, and the results were documented. The results were compared with an assessment by 3 experts, which was considered a criterion standard. Correct assessment rates, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 scores were calculated to reflect accuracy, both overall and for each domain of the Cochrane ROB tool; consistent assessment rates and Cohen kappa were calculated to gauge consistency; and assessment time was calculated to measure efficiency. Performance between the 2 models was compared using risk differences. Results Both models demonstrated high correct assessment rates. LLM 1 reached a mean correct assessment rate of 84.5% (95% CI, 81.5%-87.3%), and LLM 2 reached a significantly higher rate of 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-91.8%). The risk difference between the 2 models was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.09). In most domains, domain-specific correct rates were around 80% to 90%; however, sensitivity below 0.80 was observed in domains 1 (random sequence generation), 2 (allocation concealment), and 6 (other concerns). Domains 4 (missing outcome data), 5 (selective outcome reporting), and 6 had F1 scores below 0.50. The consistent rates between the 2 assessments were 84.0% for LLM 1 and 87.3% for LLM 2. LLM 1's kappa exceeded 0.80 in 7 and LLM 2's in 8 domains. The mean (SD) time needed for assessment was 77 (16) seconds for LLM 1 and 53 (12) seconds for LLM 2. Conclusions In this survey study of applying LLMs for ROB assessment, LLM 1 and LLM 2 demonstrated substantial accuracy and consistency in evaluating RCTs, suggesting their potential as supportive tools in systematic review processes.

Objective: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is beneficial to adult patients with depression, but its safety and efficacy in combination with antidepressants in children and adolescents with depression are not clear. We conducted a preliminary meta-analysis to objectively evaluate its clinical effect and provide information for future research and clinical practice. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched systematically to find clinical trials published in English before April 11, 2023. Stata software was used for meta-analysis, and random or fixed effect models were used to combine effect sizes. Results: Nine studies were eligible and included (n = 393). No articles about children were included in the analysis. The results showed that the remission rate was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13% to 71%). The scores of Children's Depression Rating Scale (CRDS) and Hamilton's depression scale (HAMD) significantly decreased compared to baseline value (MD = -27.04, 95% CI: -30.95, -23.12 and MD = -12.78, 95% CI: -19.55 to -6.01). In addition, the incidence of all adverse events was 13% (95% CI: 5%, 23%), and all were minor pain-related events. Conclusion: The combination of NIBS and antidepressants has been shown to notably alleviate depressive symptoms in adolescents, offering a considerable level of safety. This therapeutic synergy is particularly effective in patients with major depressive disorder, where repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmented with antidepressants can enhance the amelioration of depressive symptoms. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023442215, PROSPERO CRD42023442215.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread globally. Due to the higher risk of mortality, the treatment of severe or critical patients is a top priority. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment has played an extremely important role in the fight against COVID-19 in China; a timely evidence summary on TCM in managing COVID-19 is crucial to update the knowledge of healthcare for better clinical management of COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the effects and safety of TCM treatments for severe/critical COVID-19 patients by systematically collecting and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (e.g., cohort). Methods: We searched nine databases up to 19th March 2022 and the reference lists of relevant publications. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. We performed qualitative systematic analysis with visual presentation of results and compared the direction and distribution of effect estimates for each patient's important outcome. We performed sensitivity analyses to observe the robustness of results by restricting analysis to studies with low risk of bias. Results: The search yielded 217,761 records, and 21 studies (6 RCTs and 15 observational studies) proved eligible. A total of 21 studies enrolled 12,981 severe/critical COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 57.21 years and a mean proportion of men of 47.91%. Compared with usual supportive treatments, the effect estimates of TCM treatments were consistent in direction, illustrating that TCM treatments could reduce the risk of mortality, rate of conversion to critical cases, and mechanical ventilation, and showed significant advantages in shortening the length of hospital stay, time to viral clearance, and symptom resolution. The results were similar when we restricted analyses to low-risk-bias studies. No serious adverse events were reported with TCM treatments, and no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence suggests that TCM presents substantial advantages in treating severe/critical COVID-19 patients. TCM has a safety profile that is comparable to that of conventional treatment alone. TCMs have played an important role in China's prevention and treatment of COVID-19, which sets an example of using traditional medicine in preventing and treating COVID-19 worldwide.

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs. Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005). Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

Background & Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study. Results: A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out the relevant problems. PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) was searched for SRs on COVID-19 treatments as of 2 June 2020. Excel 2016 was used for descriptive analyses of the extracted data. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for collaborations between countries and institutions. A total of 189 SRs were included, which were registered by 301 institutions from 39 countries. China (69, 36.50%) exhibited the highest output. Cooperation between countries was not close enough. As an institution, the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (7, 3.70%) had the highest output. There was close cooperation between institutions. Interventions included antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), respiratory support (16, 8.47%), circulatory support (11, 5.82%), plasma therapy for convalescent patients (11, 5.82%), immunotherapy (9, 4.76%), TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) treatment (9, 4.76%), rehabilitation treatment (5, 2.65%), anti-inflammatory treatment (16, 8.47%) and other treatments (31, 16.40%). Concerning antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), the most commonly used antiviral agents were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (26, 13.76%), followed by remdesivir (12, 6.35%), lobinavir/ritonavir (11, 5.82%), favipiravir (5, 2.65%), ribavirin (5, 2.65%), interferon (5, 2.65%), abiron (4, 2.12%) and abidor (4, 2.12%). The most frequently used primary and secondary outcomes were the mortality rate (92, 48.68%) and hospital stay length (48, 25.40%), respectively. The expression of the outcomes was not standardised. Many COVID-19 SRs on treatment modalities have been registered, with a low completion rate. Although there was some collaboration between countries and institutions in the currently registered SRs on treatment modalities for COVID-19 on PROSPERO, cooperation between countries should be further enhanced. More attention should be directed towards identifying deficiencies of outcome measures, and the standardisation of results should be maximised.

Background Healthcare systems worldwide increasingly value the contribution of employee voice in ensuring the quality of patient care. Although employees’ concerns are often dealt with satisfactorily, considerable evidence suggests that some employees may feel unable to speak-up, and even when they do their concerns may be ignored. As a result, in addition to trans-national and national policies, workplace interventions that support employees to speak-up about their concerns have recently increased. Methods A systematic narrative review, informed by complex systems perspectives addresses the question: “What workplace strategies and/or interventions have been implemented to promote speaking-up by employees”? Results Thirty-four studies were included in the review. Most studies reported inconclusive results. Researchers explanations for the successful implementation, or otherwise, of speak-up interventions were synthesised into two narrative themes (Braithwaite et al., 2018 (a)) hierarchical, interdisciplinary and cultural relationships and (Francis, 2015 (b)) psychological safety. Conclusions We strengthen the existing evidence base by providing an in-depth critique of the complex system factors influencing the implementation of speak-up interventions within the healthcare workforce. Although many of the studies were locally unique, there were international similarities in workplace cultures and norms that created contexts inimical to speaking-up interventions. Changing communication behaviours and creating a climate that supports speaking-up is immensely challenging. Interventions can be usurped in practice by complex, emergent and contextual issues, such as pre-existing socio-cultural relationships and workplace hierarchies.

Purpose: To provide an overview of existing meta-analysis (MAs) on the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for depression, and assess the methodological quality and the strength of evidence of the included MAs. Methods: We searched MAs of randomized trials that have evaluated the effects of acupuncture on depression in three international and three Chinese databases from their inception until August 2019. The methodological quality of included MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Results: We included 31 MAs and 59 RCTs. The results of included MAs were conflicting, our meta-analyses found that acupuncture may confer small benefit in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment than no treatment/wait list/treatment as usual(SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.41, eight trials, 624 participants), control acupuncture (invasive, non-invasive sham controls) (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.04, 20 trials, 1055 participants), antidepressants(Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)/Tetracyclic antidepressants(TCAs)) (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10, 30 trials, 3068 participants), acupuncture plus antidepressants versus antidepressants(SSRI/TCAs) (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.61, 17 trials, 1110 participants). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference between electro-acupuncture and invasive control (P = 0.37), electroacupuncture and non-invasive control (P = 0.90), manual acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.57), electro-acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.07). Six MAs concluded that acupuncture reduced the incidence of adverse events compared with antidepressants. The evaluation with AMSTAR-2 showed that the quality of included MAs was low or critically low. The results of the GRADE evaluation showed that the strength of evidence was low to very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Although acupuncture appears to be more effective and safer than no treatment, control acupuncture and antidepressants, the quality of the available evidence was very low. Further methodologically rigorous and adequately powered primary studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of acupuncture for depression.

The unacceptably high incidence of clinical adverse events caused by medical devices (MDs), their high recall rates, and the frequent phase out of some of the devices that pose a greater risk to health have triggered alarm concerning the long-standing weaknesses of their regulatory processes. It has long been known that regulation is not strongly associated with the existence of market failures. In this article the deficient approval process and postmarketing surveillance of MDs in the United States and Europe, as well as the causes and effects of their very serious failings, that put patient safety at serious risk, are critically reviewed. Solutions to address the urgent need to develop new regulation in the European Union are set forth as well. The fragmented MD industry is plagued with externalities. It seems that regulation is more being supplied in response to industry's demand (legislation and agencies capture) than for redistributing health and wealth. Severe adverse events associated with MD are spurring demand for regulation. Governments should promote the most risked-based, cost-effective regulations, those that pursue the interests of individuals affected, by using public and unbiased estimates of their costs and benefits, maximizing net health gains through legislation, applying clear rules of the game, and braking up the effects of the influence of interest groups.