Evidence-based Medicine
Living health technology assessments: how close to living reality
24 Feb, 2023 | 13:32h | UTCLiving health technology assessments: how close to living reality – BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Perspective | Application of Bayesian approaches in drug development: starting a virtuous cycle
22 Feb, 2023 | 12:32h | UTC
Commentary on Twitter
Application of Bayesian approaches in drug development: starting a virtuous cycle https://t.co/GxPFRA3J6u
A new Perspective that highlights the value of Bayesian methods in drug development, discusses barriers to their application and recommends approaches to address them pic.twitter.com/JTgo02aPdI
— Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (@NatRevDrugDisc) February 16, 2023
A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
16 Feb, 2023 | 14:48h | UTC
Opinion | Platform trials: the future of medical research?
15 Feb, 2023 | 16:07h | UTCPlatform trials: the future of medical research? – The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Commentary on Twitter
"The COVID-19 pandemic has shown the amazing things that can come out of a truly pragmatic clinical trial."
NEW Spotlight—Platform trials: the future of medical research?
Read more here: https://t.co/VPxg7JmAov
— The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (@LancetRespirMed) February 10, 2023
M-A | Risk of bias in randomized clinical trials comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement
15 Feb, 2023 | 15:52h | UTCCommentary: Major TAVI Studies Have ‘Methodological Issues,’ INTEGRITTY Group Contends – TCTMD
Commentary on Twitter
Trials comparing TAVI vs SAVR show substantial proportions of deviation from assigned treatment, loss to follow-up, and additional procedures, as well as systematic selective imbalance favoring TAVI that might affect internal validity. https://t.co/n7hwTMEPGu
— JAMA Network Open (@JAMANetworkOpen) January 3, 2023
Perspective | Paying research participants — a lot — may be a key to increasing diversity in studies
15 Feb, 2023 | 15:50h | UTCPaying research participants — a lot — may be a key to increasing diversity in studies – STAT
Opinion | The “evidence pyramid” should be dismantled, brick by ill-conceived brick
14 Feb, 2023 | 10:57h | UTCSummary: The text criticizes the use of the so-called “evidence pyramid” in medicine, which suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are the highest level of evidence in medicine. The author argues that SRMAs are not evidence themselves, but a lens through which actual evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is viewed. They depend on the quality of the review process and the evidence appraised, which are often low quality and small studies with various methodologies. The author suggests that a better framework would place RCTs at the top of the pyramid and relegates SRMAs to the role of a lens. The author also points out that good observational studies may be better than bad RCTs, and that each paper should be read and judged on its individual merits, not by its strata on a pyramid.
(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)
Source: The “evidence pyramid” should be dismantled, brick by ill-conceived brick – Sensible Medicine
Perspective | Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing
14 Feb, 2023 | 10:58h | UTCSummary: The article discusses the ethical challenges posed by the use of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot, in medical publishing. The authors note that the impact of generative AI on medical publishing is currently unknown, but it could have substantial ethical implications, including copyright, attribution, plagiarism, and authorship issues. The authors argue that there is a growing need for robust AI author guidelines in scholarly publishing, and that the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers has produced a white paper on AI ethics. They also raise concerns about the potential for ChatGPT to widen existing disparities in knowledge dissemination and scholarly publishing, as well as the potential for the chatbot to produce misleading or inaccurate content. The authors call on The Lancet Digital Health and the Lancet family to initiate discussions around the implications of AI-generated content within scholarly publishing and to create comprehensive guidance.
(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)
Design, power, and alpha levels in randomized phase II oncology trials
14 Feb, 2023 | 10:40h | UTCSummary: This study examined the methodology, reporting, and bias in the interpretation of outcomes in randomized phase II oncology trials. It found that many trials failed to report essential data for determining sample size calculations, did not use a comparator to determine efficacy, and had positive conclusions even though the results were indeterminate or the primary endpoint was not met. The study concluded that phase II trials need to adhere to the same reporting standards and be interpreted in the context of their primary endpoint and endpoints important for the patient.
(By ChatGPT, reviewed and edited)
Article: Design, power, and alpha levels in randomized phase II oncology trials – ESMO Open
SR | Spin and fragility in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature
13 Feb, 2023 | 12:33h | UTCSpin and fragility in randomised controlled trials in the anaesthesia literature: a systematic review – British Journal of Anaesthesiology (free for a limited period)
Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomized controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane
13 Feb, 2023 | 12:34h | UTC
Umbrella review of basket trials testing a drug in tumors with actionable genetic biomarkers
13 Feb, 2023 | 12:26h | UTC
Opinion | Interpreting the results from the first randomized controlled trial of colonoscopy: does it save lives?
10 Feb, 2023 | 13:54h | UTCOriginal Study: RCT | Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death.
Review | Handling missing data in clinical research
10 Feb, 2023 | 13:34h | UTCHandling missing data in clinical research – Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ChatGPT and the future of medical writing (ChatGPT itself wrote this paper)
6 Feb, 2023 | 13:31h | UTCChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing – Radiology
Editorials:
ChatGPT Is Shaping the Future of Medical Writing but Still Requires Human Judgment – Radiology
ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords – Radiology
Commentaries:
AI program ChatGPT now has a published article in Radiology—is it any good? – Health Imaging
Peer-Reviewed Journal Publishes Paper Written Almost Entirely by ChatGPT— It required close editing, human co-author said – MedPage Today (free registration required)
Related:
ChatGPT: five priorities for research – Nature
The path forward for ChatGPT in academia – Lumo’s Newsletter
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
ChatGPT: five priorities for research
6 Feb, 2023 | 13:30h | UTCChatGPT: five priorities for research – Nature
Related:
ChatGPT and the Future of Medical Writing – Radiology
The path forward for ChatGPT in academia – Lumo’s Newsletter
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
Analysis | Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time
3 Feb, 2023 | 14:17h | UTCPapers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time – Nature
Commentaries:
‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why – Nature
Innovation in Science Is on The Decline And We’re Not Sure Why – Science Alerts
Commentary on Twitter
Science and technology are getting less disruptive on the basis of 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents published in the past 6 decadeshttps://t.co/7RxiutNR9z@Nature @russellfunk @michae1park pic.twitter.com/RHLYmJYQz6
— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) January 4, 2023
Lipid‐lowering trials are not representative of patients managed in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of exclusion criteria
2 Feb, 2023 | 14:52h | UTC
Placebo and nocebo effects: from observation to harnessing and clinical application
2 Feb, 2023 | 14:38h | UTC
Editorial | Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge
1 Feb, 2023 | 13:38h | UTCRelated:
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
Analysis | An easy way to spot bias in observational studies
31 Jan, 2023 | 14:02h | UTCAn Easy Way to Spot Bias in Observational Studies – Sensible Medicine
Commentary on Twitter
Sensible Medicine: An Easy Way to Spot Bias in Observational Studies https://t.co/iDAap0IEvd
— Sensible Medicine (@Sensible__Med) January 30, 2023
Financial conflicts of interest among US physician authors of 2020 clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study
30 Jan, 2023 | 01:10h | UTC
Conditional power: how likely is trial success?
30 Jan, 2023 | 00:52h | UTCConditional Power: How Likely Is Trial Success? – JAMA (free for a limited period)
Commentary on Twitter
JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods article examines conditional power, calculated while a trial is ongoing and based on both the currently observed data and an assumed treatment effect for future patients. https://t.co/h9Ky9rgF61
— JAMA (@JAMA_current) January 23, 2023
Editorial | ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
27 Jan, 2023 | 12:20h | UTCChatGPT is fun, but not an author – Science
Related:
Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use – Nature
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove – Nature
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
The digitization and decentralization of clinical trials
26 Jan, 2023 | 12:43h | UTCThe Digitization and Decentralization of Clinical Trials – Mayo Clinic Proceedings