A test collection for evaluating retrieval of studies for inclusion in systematic reviews

This paper introduces a test collection for evaluating the effectiveness of different methods used to retrieve research studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews appraise and synthesise studies that meet specific inclusion criteria. Systematic reviews intended for a biomedical science audience use boolean queries with many, often complex, search clauses to retrieve studies; these are then manually screened to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. This process is expensive and time consuming. The development of systems that improve retrieval effectiveness will have an immediate impact by reducing the complexity and resources required for this process. Our test collection consists of approximately 26 million research studies extracted from the freely available MEDLINE database, 94 review (query) topics extracted from Cochrane systematic reviews, and corresponding relevance assessments. Tasks for which the collection can be used for information retrieval system evaluation are described and the use of the collection to evaluate common baselines within one such task is demonstrated. The test collection is available at https://github.com/ielab/SIGIR2017-PICO-Collection

Reprint of “The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: explanation and elaboration”

There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Published versio

Efficacy of Elaborated Semantic Features Analysis in Aphasia: a quasi-randomised controlled trial

Background: Word finding difficulty is one of the most common features of aphasia. Semantic Features Analysis (SFA) directly aims to improve word finding in people with aphasia. Evidence from systematic reviews suggests that SFA leads to positive outcomes, yet the evidence comprises single case studies and case series. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy of SFA in controlled group studies/trials. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of Elaborated Semantic Feature Analysis (ESFA) for word finding in people with aphasia. We investigated: (a) the efficacy of ESFA versus a delayed therapy/control, (b) the efficacy of two therapy approaches– individual versus a combination of individual and group therapy. Methods and procedures: We ran a multi-centre, quasi-randomised controlled trial, nested in a larger study (Thales-Aphasia). Participants were recruited from community settings. They had to be people with aphasia due to stroke at least four months post-onset. Participants were randomized to individual vs combination vs delayed therapy/control groups. Both therapy groups had three hours of ESFA per week for 12 weeks. Delayed therapy/control group had no intervention for 12 weeks and were then randomized to either individual or combination therapy. The primary outcome was confrontation naming. Secondary outcomes were the Boston Naming Test, Discourse, the Functional Assessment of Communication Skills for adults (ASHA–FACS), the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQOL-39g), the General Health Questionnaire-12 item, and the EQ-5D. Outcomes and Results: Of the 72 participants of the Thales-Aphasia project, 58 met eligibility criteria for speech-language therapy and 39 were allocated to ESFA. The critical p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (.005). For the therapy versus control comparison, there was a significant main effect of time on the primary outcome (p<.001, η2p=.42) and a significant interaction effect (p=.003, η2p=.21). An interaction effect for the SAQOL-39g (p=.015, η2p=.11) and its psychosocial domain (p=.013, η2p=.12) did not remain significant after Bonferroni adjustment. For the individual versus combination ESFA comparison, there were significant main effects of time on the primary outcome (p<.001, η2p=.49), the BNT (p<.001, η2p=.29) and the ASHA-FACS (p=.001, η2p=.18). Interaction and group effects were not significant. Conclusion: Though underpowered, this study provides evidence on the efficacy of ESFA to improve word finding in aphasia, with gains similar in the two therapy approaches. Trial registration: ISRCTN71455409, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN7145540

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Marian Showell for her help in updating the search strategy and carrying out the literature search; to Anne Lethaby for translating the Spanish paper and extracting data; and in particular to Helen Nagels and Jane Marjoribanks for their editorial assistance, help with GRADEpro, general co-ordination and assisting with teleconferences among authors. We also thank Helen Nagels for her help in translating the French paper and extracting the data. The review authors had no specific funding for this reviewPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Counselling in primary care : a systematic review of the evidence

Primary objective: To undertake a systematic review which aimed to locate, appraise and synthesise evidence to obtain a reliable overview of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and user perspectives regarding counselling in primary care. Main results: Evidence from 26 studies was presented as a narrative synthesis and demonstrated that counselling is effective in the short term, is as effective as CBT with typical heterogeneous primary care populations and more effective than routine primary care for the treatment of non-specific generic psychological problems, anxiety and depression. Counselling may reduce levels of referrals to psychiatric services, but does not appear to reduce medication, the number of GP consultations or overall costs. Patients are highly satisfied with the counselling they have received in primary care and prefer counselling to medication for depression. Conclusions and implications for future research: This review demonstrates the value of counselling as a valid choice for primary care patients and as a broadly effective therapeutic intervention for a wide range of generic psychological conditions presenting in the primary care setting. More rigorous clinical and cost-effectiveness trials are needed together with surveys of more typical users of primary care services