ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Incorporating preprints in systematic reviews: a preliminary study of a novel method for rapid evidence synthesis.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enabling inclusive systematic reviews: incorporating preprint articles with large language model-driven evaluations.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBy October 1, 2024, over 450,000 COVID-19 manuscripts were published, with 10% posted as unreviewed preprints. While they accelerate knowledge sharing, their inconsistent quality complicates systematic studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe propose a 2-stage method to include preprints in meta-analyses. In Stage A, preprints are integrated through restriction or imputation and weighted by a confidence score reflecting their publication likelihood. In Stage B, we assess and adjust for potential publication or reporting biases.
resultsThis preliminary study employed a 2-stage procedure validated with 2 COVID-19 treatment case studies. For hydroxychloroquine, the relative risk (RR) was 1.06 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.80], suggesting no mortality benefit over placebo. For corticosteroids, the RR was 0.88 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.27], which, while not statistically significant, aligns with evidence supporting a mortality benefit. DISCUSSION: Our research aims to bridge a significant methodological gap by providing a solution for timely evidence synthesis, particularly in the face of the overwhelming number of publications surrounding COVID-19.
conclusionThis preliminary study presents a method to efficiently synthesize COVID-19 research, including non-peer-reviewed preprints, to support clinical and policy decisions amidst the information surge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.