Background: Searching for studies to include in a systematic review (SR) is a time- and labor-intensive process with searches of multiple databases recommended. To reduce the time spent translating search strings across databases, a tool called the Polyglot Search Translator (PST) was developed. The authors evaluated whether using the PST as a search translation aid reduces the time required to translate search strings without increasing errors. Methods: In a randomized trial, twenty participants were randomly allocated ten database search strings and then randomly assigned to translate five with the assistance of the PST (PST-A method) and five without the assistance of the PST (manual method). We compared the time taken to translate search strings, the number of errors made, and how close the number of references retrieved by a translated search was to the number retrieved by a reference standard translation. Results: Sixteen participants performed 174 translations using the PST-A method and 192 translations using the manual method. The mean time taken to translate a search string with the PST-A method was 31 minutes versus 45 minutes by the manual method (mean difference: 14 minutes). The mean number of errors made per translation by the PST-A method was 8.6 versus 14.6 by the manual method. Large variation in the number of references retrieved makes results for this outcome unreliable, although the number of references retrieved by the PST-A method was closer to the reference standard translation than the manual method. Conclusion: When used to assist with translating search strings across databases, the PST can increase the speed of translation without increasing errors. Errors in search translations can still be a problem, and search specialists should be aware of this.

http://jmla.mlanet.org/ojs/jmla/article/download/834/1044

Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial.

A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study

Background The prevalence of true asymptomatic COVID-19 cases is critical to policy makers considering the effectiveness of mitigation measures against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the asymptomatic rates and transmission rates where possible. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC (which covers pre-print platforms such as MedRxiv). We included primary studies reporting on asymptomatic prevalence where: (a) the sample frame includes at-risk population, and (b) there was sufficiently long follow up to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed effect and random effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies. Results We screened 998 articles and included nine low risk-of-bias studies from six countries that tested 21,035 at-risk people, of which 559 were positive and 83 were asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a RT-qPCR test. The proportion of asymptomatic cases ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effect) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 15% (95% CI: 12% - 18%) overall; higher in non-aged care 16% (13% - 19%), and lower in long-term aged care 8% (3% - 18%). Four studies provided direct evidence of forward transmission of the infection by asymptomatic cases but suggested considerably lower rates than symptomatic cases. Discussion Our estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates are lower than many highly publicized studies, but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in sub-populations such as children, to better understand the importance of asymptomatic cases for driving spread of the pandemic. Funding OB is supported by NHMRC Grant APP1106452. PG is supported by NHMRC Australian Fellowship grant 1080042. KB was supported by NHMRC Fellowship grant 1174523. All authors had full access to all data and agreed to final manuscript to be submitted for publication. There was no funding source for this study.

/pdf/estimating-the-extent-of-asymptomatic-covid-19-and-its-32x3u4p8i1.pdf

Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: systematic review and meta-analysis

COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly ...

An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64.

Objective To determine the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies reporting on patients with long covid and symptoms of long covid, with vaccination before and after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool. Results 1645 articles were screened but no randomised controlled trials were found. 16 observational studies from five countries (USA, UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were identified that reported on 614 392 patients. The most common symptoms of long covid that were studied were fatigue, cough, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, muscle ache, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion. 12 studies reported data on vaccination before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and 10 showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long covid: the odds ratio of developing long covid with one dose of vaccine ranged from 0.22 to 1.03; with two doses, odds ratios were 0.25-1; with three doses, 0.16; and with any dose, 0.48-1.01. Five studies reported on vaccination after infection, with odds ratios of 0.38-0.91. The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. The studies failed to adjust for potential confounders, such as other protective behaviours and missing data, thus increasing the risk of bias and decreasing the certainty of evidence to low. Conclusions Current studies suggest that covid-19 vaccines might have protective and therapeutic effects on long covid. More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed, however, to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid. Protocol registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e8jdy.

Effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid: systematic review

Background: To improve the speed and quality of literature searching for systematic reviews (SRs) we developed an online tool, the Polyglot Search Translator (PST). This tool helps to automatically translate searches across multiple databases by modifying the database-specific syntax, removing the need to do this manually.Objectives: To determine whether the PST improves the speed and quality of database searching for SRs.Methods: From a pool of 20 randomly selected database search strategies from reviews of drug and non-drug interventions, diagnostic tests, prevalence, prognosis and health technology assessments, each of 20 participants were randomly assigned 10 searches and randomly allocated to translate the search manually or with the PST. The participants were asked to translate each search into three databases from the following: PubMed or Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com or Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science or Scopus. We measured: 1) the time taken to translate the search strategies using manual methods or the PST (these were compared against each other); 2) the number of search results found by the participants, compared to the number found by a reference standard developed through consensus by two Cochrane information specialists; 3) errors found in the participants' searches, identified through consensus by the two Cochrane information specialists (manual errors will be compared to PST errors).Results: Preliminary results show that when compared with a manual method, using the PST to translate a search saved an average of 10 minutes per database; this increased to over 100 minutes per database on the most complex search. As more data become available, a more accurate representation of the time saving is expected. The number of search results found and errors in the searches are still being analysed.Conclusions: Initial data show that the PST saves time when searching for studies for inclusion in a SR. Analysis has not yet begun of the quality of search translations; these data will be presented.Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Although not directly involving patients or health care consumers, the PST could open pathways for less experienced individuals to be involved in a SR and speed up SR production, with the benefit to consumers of having access to more up-to-date SRs.

The Polyglot Search Translator (PST): Evaluation of a tool for improving searching in systematic reviews: A randomised cross-over trial

Objective We investigated the use of systematic review automation tools by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developers. Study design and settings An online, 16-question survey was distributed across several evidence synthesis, health technology assessment and guideline development organisations internationally. We asked the respondents what tools they use and abandon, how often and when they use the tools, their perceived time savings and accuracy, and desired new tools. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. Results 253 respondents completed the survey; 89% have used systematic review automation tools – most frequently whilst screening (79%). Respondents’ ‘top 3’ tools include: Covidence (45%), RevMan (35%), Rayyan and GRADEPro (both 22%); most commonly abandoned were Rayyan (19%), Covidence (15%), DistillerSR (14%) and RevMan (13%). Majority thought tools saved time (80%) and increased accuracy (54%). Respondents taught themselves to how to use the tools (72%), and were most often prevented by lack of knowledge from their adoption (51%). Most new tool development was suggested for the searching and data extraction stages. Conclusion Automation tools are likely to take on an increasingly important role in high quality and timely reviews. Further work is required in training and dissemination of automation tools and ensuring they meet the desirable features of those conducting systematic reviews.

/pdf/systematic-review-automation-tool-use-by-systematic-490yycestq.pdf

Systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developers: tools used, abandoned, and desired

/pdf/development-and-usage-growth-of-the-polyglot-search-261ltdvak9.pdf

Development and Usage Growth of the Polyglot Search Translator

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

M. Carter

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial.

The Polyglot Search Translator (PST): Evaluation of a tool for improving searching in systematic reviews: A randomised cross-over trial

Systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developers: tools used, abandoned, and desired

Development and Usage Growth of the Polyglot Search Translator