Moher, David

Abstract Objectives To systematically evaluate the certainty of evidence for treatment strategies across age groups and mood phases in bipolar disorder, and develop an open access web platform to facilitate shared decision making. Design Living umbrella review, evaluation, analysis, and communication hub (U-REACH) project. Data sources PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane library databases, from inception to 19 November 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with network or pairwise meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical, psychosocial, brain stimulation, or circadian rhythm based treatments, administered as monotherapy (without concurrent interventions), augmentation treatment (interventions added to an ongoing treatment regimen), or combination treatment (simultaneous initiation of two different interventions), examining any age group, bipolar disorder phase (ie, acute bipolar depression, mania or mixed episodes, or maintenance), treatment, control, or outcome. Results 77 studies met the inclusion criteria (21 network meta-analyses and 56 pairwise meta-analyses), including 116 unique pharmacological (n=74), brain stimulation (n=18), nutraceutical (n=13), psychosocial (n=8), and circadian rhythm based (n=3) treatments as monotherapy, augmentation, or combination therapy, along with five control interventions. These studies covered 133 unique outcomes (45 efficacy outcomes and 88 safety outcomes) resulting in 2510 meta-analyses with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) ratings of the certainty of the evidence as high (n=236), moderate (n=827), low (n=986), and very low (n=461). A communication hub, the Evidence Based Interventions for Bipolar Disorder (EBI-BD) platform, was developed and the full results are freely available ( https://ebibd-database.org ), including the preference based tool (12 interventions and 17 safety outcomes). Interventions effective across outcomes varied by phases. For bipolar depression, effective interventions in adults were cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, fluoxetine, ketamine (augmentation), lamotrigine, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine, olanzapine with fluoxetine, and quetiapine, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were lurasidone and olanzapine with fluoxetine. For mania episodes, effective interventions in adults were aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, divalproex or valproate, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine (also augmentation), risperidone (also as augmentation), tamoxifen, and ziprasidone, whereas effective interventions in children and adolescents were aripiprazole, asenapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. For maintenance, interventions effective across outcomes in adults were aripiprazole (also the long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, divalproex or valproate, lithium, olanzapine, group psychoeducation (augmentation), quetiapine, and risperidone long acting injectable formulation. Interventions effective across phases were aripiprazole (also as augmentation and as a long acting injectable formulation), asenapine, cariprazine, cognitive behavioural therapy (augmentation), divalproex or valproate, lamotrigine, lithium, olanzapine (also as augmentation), paliperidone, quetiapine (also as augmentation), and risperidone (also as augmentation and the long acting injectable formulation) (adults). Treatment effects by neuroscience based nomenclature classes are also reported. Conclusions The EBI-BD tool can help clinicians make evidence based, personalised treatment decisions for bipolar disorder. This resource can inform clinical guidelines and provides a foundation for continuously improving bipolar disorder care as new evidence emerges. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/pjmvn/ Readers’ note This is a living systematic review and may be updated in the next two years if additional evidence emerges.

Objective Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. Methods We identified the top 100 ‘Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine’ subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author’s name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. Results 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. Conclusions It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community’s open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

BackgroundPreferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.Purpose/HypothesisTo evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.Study TypeMeta‐research.PopulationAbstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.AssessmentPrimary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.Statistical TestsMultivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P‐values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70–1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75–1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82–1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24–0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56–1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87–1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.Data ConclusionDiagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.Evidence Level3Technical EfficacyStage 2.

Abstract This is a protocol for a co‐registered Cochrane and Campbell Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: To identify, describe and assess methods for: when to replicate a systematic review; how to replicate a systematic review.