Search

The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis.

Aims: To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first‐time attempt to quit. Methods: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost‐utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random‐effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic. Results: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost‐effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high‐income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost‐effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Conclusion: Varenicline is cost‐effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high‐income countries and low‐ and middle‐income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis is a severe autoimmune encephalitis due to immune production of anti-NMDAR antibodies against the NR1 subunit of the NMDA receptor which is present throughout the central nervous system. This condition had been reported to be prevalent in patients with certain medical conditions; however so far, there have been limited systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the prevalence and factors associated. Objective: This study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with anti-NMDAR encephalitis among affected patients. Material and Methods: The protocol of this study has been registered (2019: CRD42019142002) with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The primary outcome was the incidence or prevalence of anti-NMDAR encephalitis and secondary outcomes were factors associated with anti-NMDAR encephalitis. Results: There were 11 studies and a total of 873 million patients taken from high-risk populations across 11 countries that were included in the primary analysis. The overall pooled prevalence of anti-NMDAR encephalitis among patients with medical conditions was 7.0% (95% CI = 4.4, 9.6). Those with first episode of psychosis or schizophrenia were at a higher risk of developing anti-NMDAR encephalitis with an odds ratio of 5.976 (95% CI = 1.122, 31.825). Conclusion: We found that almost one-tenth of patients with medical conditions had anti-NMDAR encephalitis; particularly those with first episode of psychosis or schizophrenia were among the high-risk medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Introduction: Weight loss is recommended for individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and overweight or obesity, but there is limited evidence to guide the selection of weight management strategies for patients who do not lose sufficient weight with diet and lifestyle changes. We evaluated the relationship between weight loss caused by pharmacologic or surgical interventions and subsequent improvement in OSA by the apnea‐hypopnea index (AHI). Methods: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for randomized trials comparing pharmacologic or surgical obesity interventions to usual care, placebo, or no treatment in adults with OSA. The association between percentage weight loss and AHI change between randomization and last follow‐up was evaluated using meta‐regression. PROSPERO: CRD42022378853. Results: Ten eligible trials (n = 854 patients) were included. Four (n = 211) assessed bariatric surgery, and 6 (n = 643) assessed pharmacologic interventions over a median follow‐up of 13 months (interquartile range 6–26 months). The linear best estimate of the change in AHI is 0.45 events per hour (95% Confidence Interval 0.18 to 0.73 events per hour) for every 1% body weight lost. Conclusions: Weight loss caused by medication or surgery caused a proportionate improvement of the AHI. Providers could consider extrapolating from this relationship when advising patients of the expected effects of other pharmacologic or surgical interventions without direct evidence in OSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]