Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons : a literature review

© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal.Peer reviewedPostprin

Choosing and using methodological search filters : searchers' views

© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Group.Peer reviewedPostprin

Proceedings of Abstracts, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science Research Conference 2022

© 2022 The Author(s). This is an open-access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For further details please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Plenary by Prof. Timothy Foat, ‘Indoor dispersion at Dstl and its recent application to COVID-19 transmission’ is © Crown copyright (2022), Dstl. This material is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] present proceedings record the abstracts submitted and accepted for presentation at SPECS 2022, the second edition of the School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science Research Conference that took place online, the 12th April 2022

The efficacy and safety of retigabine and other adjunctive treatments for refractory partial epilepsy: A systematic review and indirect comparison

AbstractIntroductionRetigabine (RTG) is now approved in Europe and the US for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults with epilepsy. To support submissions to EU reimbursement authorities, we explored its efficacy and tolerability relative to selected antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify placebo-controlled trials of RTG and selected AEDs approved for use in a similar position in the management pathway of partial epilepsy (eslicarbazepine acetate [ESL], lacosamide [LCM], pregabalin [PGB], tiagabine [TGB] and zonisamide [ZNS]). Using conventional and network meta-analyses as appropriate, we report efficacy and tolerability outcomes for each AED versus placebo and the performance of RTG relative to other AEDs.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria: three each for RTG, ESL, LCM, TGB and ZNS; five for PGB. Comparisons comprised 1–5 studies per AED. In the network meta-analysis, RTG was not found to be different from the other AEDs for responder rate (maintenance period), seizure freedom (maintenance period and double-blind period), withdrawals due to adverse events, and incidences of ataxia, dizziness, fatigue and nausea. Differences between RTG and other AEDs were found for a few comparisons, which did not reveal any trends: RTG was associated with a lower responder rate than PGB during the double-blind period, higher withdrawal rate due to any reason than ESL and a higher incidence of somnolence than TGB.ConclusionsFindings suggest that the risk/benefit for RTG is similar to that for comparator AEDs. However, results should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of the analyses

The Clinical Effectiveness of Ranibizumab Treat and Extend Regimen in nAMD: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

<p><strong>Article full text</strong></p> <p><br> The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-017-0484-0"><b>here</b>.</a><br> <br> <strong>Provide enhanced digital features for this article</strong><br> If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced digital features for your article then please contact <u>[email protected]</u>.<br> <br> The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.<br> <br> Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:<br> • Slide decks<br> • Videos and animations<br> • Audio abstracts<br> • Audio slides<u></u></p

Risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections: a systematic review.

Rapid and widespread increases in carbapenem resistance (CR) necessitate identification of risk factors to guide appropriate interventions. We aimed to identify risk factors for CR Gram-negative infection through a systematic literature review. We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSP and PubMed) and Embase (via OvidSP) databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Prospective or retrospective cohort and case-control studies reporting quantitative data on risk factors associated with infections due to CR Gram-negative pathogens in hospitalized patients were eligible. Studies included hospitalized patients with CR infection caused by Gram-negative bacterial pathogens (Enterobacterales and non-fermenters). Searches were conducted in January 2018/December 2019 to identify studies published since 2007. Risk factor data were extracted and grouped by factor. The primary metric was proportion of studies reporting a significant association with CR infection for each factor. In total, 92 studies were identified. Risk factors most frequently reported as significantly associated with CR infection (>10 studies) were previous antibiotic use (91.1%; 72/79 studies); previous carbapenem use (82.6%; 57/69); previous colonization (72.7%; 8/11); mechanical ventilation (66.7%; 36/54); previous intensive care unit stay (64.4%; 38/59); dialysis (61.1%; 11/18); catheter (58.0%; 40/69); length of stay in hospital (54.5%; 30/55); comorbidities (52.7%; 39/74); APACHE II (51.7%; 15/29); and intubation (51.4%; 18/35). Risk factors were mostly consistent across different species and sites of infection. Several variables, particularly previous antibiotic use, are strong risk factors for CR infection. Interventions to mitigate against CR infection should target these factors