<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (pwhaley)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from pwhaley</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30382-8/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1607270?scroll=top&amp;needAccess=true"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132470"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(18)31144-2/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018322979?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018316465"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30590190"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30582972"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0915-2"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://eeb.org/a-third-of-chemicals-break-eu-safety-laws/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lemonde.fr/pollution/article/2018/10/12/un-tiers-des-substances-chimiques-les-plus-utilisees-en-europe-pas-conformes-a-la-reglementation_5368179_1652666.html#Echobox=1539301755"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1178"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196129"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2863/#t2n1"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152/5043469"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017321785"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018300631"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1046202314003831?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046413001196?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05472-8"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05414-4"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05464-8"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433017/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117313114"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://chemicalwatch.com/65813/something-for-everyone"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29654821"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.ehn.org/coca-cola-war-on-science-2555599081.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0502-x"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25753"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e019703"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29522827"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29505859"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017311960"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28934091"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2545/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28741979"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2680"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/news/stop-this-waste-of-people-animals-and-money-1.22554?platform=hootsuite"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0373-7"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/i6TSUnm8pTZbTrxiRHat/full"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187271"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28857505"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339245"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k124"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5762161/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-017-0113-z"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3578/abstract"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/em/c7em00422b#!divAbstract"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29292204"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30190-1/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29288132"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289761"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289763"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29248724"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29258907"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435617310004"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269021"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30547-4/fulltext"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222059"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29203419"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29217451"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9">
    <title>Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text</title>
    <dc:date>2019-07-15T06:49:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Automation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:e61fb528ff01/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Automation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30382-8/fulltext">
    <title>Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</title>
    <dc:date>2019-07-08T11:56:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30382-8/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We read, “Stratification by quality induces selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials” by Stone et al. [1] with interest. We think that the authors have misunderstood the implications of their findings and that their conclusions could mislead authors of systematic reviews.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:c6725b380cc6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1607270?scroll=top&amp;needAccess=true">
    <title>Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review: Current Medical Research and Opinion: Vol 0, No 0</title>
    <dc:date>2019-06-21T18:02:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2019.1607270?scroll=top&amp;needAccess=true</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting quality was not significantly improved over the same period (p = .363).]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:b097a1c90c37/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132470">
    <title>Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate</title>
    <dc:date>2019-06-07T22:43:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31132470</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We analyzed judgments for performance bias of 10 429 RCTs included in 718 Cochrane reviews. Overall, 1828 out of 6918 judgments (26%) for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:ed910e6b5d50/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9">
    <title>Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-02T08:44:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:d5a1e399d1c1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y">
    <title>Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey</title>
    <dc:date>2019-05-02T08:43:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-019-0715-y</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Protocol</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:947e3e6af52d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Protocol"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(18)31144-2/fulltext">
    <title>Noblesse oblige: critical issues at the highest level of clinical evidence</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-21T16:59:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(18)31144-2/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But availability of guidelines does not guarantee that these are appropriately implemented. Propadalo et al. studied whether and to what extent in Cochrane reviews risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were in line with recommendations from the Cochrane's Handbook guidance. For this purpose, they analyzed judgments and comments of 721 Cochrane systematic review, covering 10,280 randomized controlled trials, and found that judgments for allocation concealment were discrepant for 29% of the trials.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:e3fae9af9350/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018322979?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email">
    <title>A review of methods used for hazard identification and risk assessment of environmental hazards</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-15T19:00:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018322979?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Of the 14 organisations analysed, five (36%) describe the process for establishing the questions to be answered in the assessments. Only one (7%) organisation uses systematic review methods, although five (36%) state that they use such methods. Ten (71%) assess the scientific quality of the included studies, however only three (21%) use explicit criteria. Only three (21%) organisations assess the quality of the body of evidence using explicit criteria. Four (29%) organisations describe the process for making the final HI conclusions and three (38%) the final RA conclusions.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SynthesisMethods RiskAssessment</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:a2082ef2f10d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SynthesisMethods"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskAssessment"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7">
    <title>How did the US EPA and IARC reach diametrically opposed conclusions on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides?</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-15T18:57:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-018-0184-7</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[EPA and IARC reached diametrically opposed conclusions on glyphosate genotoxicity for three primary reasons: (1) in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive (83 of 118); (2) EPA’s evaluation was largely based on data from studies on technical glyphosate, whereas IARC’s review placed heavy weight on the results of formulated GBH and AMPA assays; (3) EPA’s evaluation was focused on typical, general population dietary exposures assuming legal, food-crop uses, and did not take into account, nor address generally higher occupational exposures and risks. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>Controversy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:d3332732274b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Controversy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018316465">
    <title>Low-calorie sweeteners and health outcomes: A demonstration of rapid evidence mapping (rEM)</title>
    <dc:date>2019-01-06T13:21:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018316465</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><dc:subject>EvidenceMapping AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:919e8d0850b6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:EvidenceMapping"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30590190">
    <title>Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study</title>
    <dc:date>2018-12-31T11:43:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30590190</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Searching PubMed only might be considered where a ∼10% risk of the primary outcome OR changing by >20% could be tolerated. This could be the case in scoping reviews, resource limitation, or where syntheses are needed urgently. Other situations, such as clinical guidelines and regulatory decisions, favour more comprehensive systematic review methods.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RapidReviews</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:4626b7e9f523/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RapidReviews"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30582972">
    <title>Applying software engineering principles to address current problems in the systematic review ecosystem</title>
    <dc:date>2018-12-31T11:42:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30582972</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We found that, new methods and tools used to automate aspects of systematic review processes have focused on improving the efficiency of individual systematic reviews rather than the efficiency of the entire ecosystem of systematic review production. We use software engineering principles to review challenges and opportunities for improving the interoperability, integrity, efficiency, and maintainability. We conclude by recommending ways to improve access to structured systematic review results.]]></description>
<dc:subject>AI Automation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:97c27f3cfe6d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Automation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0915-2">
    <title>The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures</title>
    <dc:date>2018-12-30T12:09:28+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-018-0915-2</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:b80f3de05d8a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://eeb.org/a-third-of-chemicals-break-eu-safety-laws/">
    <title>A third of chemicals break EU safety laws</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-12T08:21:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://eeb.org/a-third-of-chemicals-break-eu-safety-laws/</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Companies are breaking EU law by marketing hundreds of potentially dangerous chemicals that are widely used in consumer and other products, according to a three year investigation into the chemical industry by national authorities.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskAssessment</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:9e83a95376eb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskAssessment"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lemonde.fr/pollution/article/2018/10/12/un-tiers-des-substances-chimiques-les-plus-utilisees-en-europe-pas-conformes-a-la-reglementation_5368179_1652666.html#Echobox=1539301755">
    <title>Un tiers des substances chimiques les plus utilisées en Europe non conformes à la réglementation</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-12T08:20:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lemonde.fr/pollution/article/2018/10/12/un-tiers-des-substances-chimiques-les-plus-utilisees-en-europe-pas-conformes-a-la-reglementation_5368179_1652666.html#Echobox=1539301755</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[One third of good sold in Europe are compliant with REACH regulations.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskAssessment</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:f96d3416fee6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskAssessment"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1178">
    <title>Research on research</title>
    <dc:date>2018-09-21T05:56:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1178</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[For some, studying how the sausage is made is a fascinating intellectual pursuit in itself. But other metaresearchers are driven by a desire to clean up science's act. Their work has spawned many initiatives to make research more robust and efficient, from preregistering studies and establishing reporting standards to the recent push to make study data freely available for others to explore. Metaresearchers sometimes need a thick skin; not all scientists are grateful when their long-standing practices are questioned. And whether the reforms actually work has become a study object in itself.]]></description>
<dc:subject>BetterScience</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:552f2983338f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:BetterScience"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196129">
    <title>Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews</title>
    <dc:date>2018-09-10T18:02:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30196129</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Most reviews used NS (56%, n=251/446), meta-analysis was the primary method of synthesis for 44%. In the detailed assessment of NS: 95% (n=71/75) did not describe NS methods; 43% (n=32) did not provide transparent links between the synthesis data and the synthesis reported in the text; of 14 reviews that identified heterogeneity in direction of effect, only one investigated the heterogeneity; and 36% (n=27) did not reflect on limitations of the synthesis.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SynthesisMethods MetaAnalysis</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:682ceb97c62f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SynthesisMethods"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:MetaAnalysis"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2863/#t2n1">
    <title>Mercury Exposure, Blood Pressure, and Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Dose–response Meta-analysis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-08-14T13:25:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2863/#t2n1</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A significant positive association between mercury and hypertension and between mercury and BP was identified. The exposure dose is an important factor in determining the toxic effects of mercury on hypertension. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:41eb32043728/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152/5043469">
    <title>Machine learning of toxicological big data enables read-across structure activity relationships (RASAR) outperforming animal test reproducibility | Toxicological Sciences | Oxford Academic</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-15T17:34:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152/5043469</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The novel models called RASARs (read-across structure activity relationship) use binary fingerprints and Jaccard distance to define chemical similarity. A large chemical similarity adjacency matrix is constructed from this similarity metric and is used to derive feature vectors for supervised learning. We show results on nine health hazards from two kinds of RASARs – ‘Simple’ and ‘Data Fusion’. The ‘Simple’ RASAR seeks to duplicate the traditional read-across method, predicting hazard from chemical analogues with known hazard data. The ‘Data Fusion’ RASAR extends this concept by creating large feature vectors from all available property data rather than only the modeled hazard.]]></description>
<dc:subject>AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:7f6197c13511/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017321785">
    <title>WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres and of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis - ScienceDirect</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-15T17:25:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017321785</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy Protocol</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:ad6d96ed8f4f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Protocol"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018300631">
    <title>WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke - ScienceDirect</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-15T17:24:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018300631</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy Protocol</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:129de3df8594/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Protocol"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1046202314003831?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email">
    <title>DISEASES: Text mining and data integration of disease–gene associations</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-06T18:23:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1046202314003831?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We present a system for extracting disease–gene associations from biomedical abstracts. The system consists of a highly efficient dictionary-based tagger for named entity recognition of human genes and diseases, which we combine with a scoring scheme that takes into account co-occurrences both within and between sentences. We show that this approach is able to extract half of all manually curated associations with a false positive rate of only 0.16%. Nonetheless, text mining should not stand alone, but be combined with other types of evidence. For this reason, we have developed the DISEASES resource.]]></description>
<dc:subject>AI TextMining</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:27bdf4b3ff3f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:TextMining"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046413001196?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email">
    <title>Unsupervised biomedical named entity recognition: Experiments with clinical and biological texts</title>
    <dc:date>2018-07-06T18:22:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046413001196?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&amp;dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We describe a stepwise solution to tackle the challenges of entity boundary detection and entity type classification without relying on any handcrafted rules, heuristics, or annotated data. A noun phrase chunker followed by a filter based on inverse document frequency extracts candidate entities from free text. Classification of candidate entities into categories of interest is carried out by leveraging principles from distributional semantics. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>AI NamedEntity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:51676b9745d1/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:AI"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:NamedEntity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05472-8">
    <title>A fresh approach to evidence synthesis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-27T04:58:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05472-8</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:c782f2bc963a/</dc:identifier>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05414-4">
    <title>Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-27T04:57:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05414-4</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:ccf9c86d5a65/</dc:identifier>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05464-8">
    <title>Evidence synthesis needs greater incentives</title>
    <dc:date>2018-06-27T04:55:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05464-8</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:013ed30befb6/</dc:identifier>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433017/">
    <title>Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review protocol according to the OHAT approach for hazard identification</title>
    <dc:date>2018-05-17T15:36:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433017/</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is the first time that the OHAT systematic review protocol will be applied to investigate a possible causal association between exposure to paraquat and PD. Results from this study could serve as basis for regulatory agencies to define paraquat levels of concern, supporting its risk assessment process.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Protocol SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:5e48fa4f1e48/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Protocol"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117313114">
    <title>Quality of epidemiological studies: Procedural rules for uncertain science for policy, a case study on bisphenol-A</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-26T16:12:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901117313114</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We found substantial heterogeneity of scientists’ judgments about the quality of epidemiological studies, even if the same criteria were used for the assessment. This heterogeneity is not present anymore in reports produced by expert groups, where results are presented under the collective signature of all the scientists involved. We argue that flattening heterogeneity can be an important problem when it is not the result of true scientific agreement but only a secondary effect of consensus-based working procedures of agencies that experts have to follow.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ExpertElicitation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:a374d7073788/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:ExpertElicitation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/">
    <title>The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete. Here's What's Next</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-24T10:45:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The grand scientific challenges of our day are as often as not computational puzzles: How to integrate billions of base pairs of genomic data, and 10 times that amount of proteomic data, and historical patient data, and the results of pharmacological screens into a coherent account of how somebody got sick and what to do to make them better? How to make actionable an endless stream of new temperature and precipitation data, and oceanographic and volcanic and seismic data? How to build, and make sense of, a neuron-by-neuron map of a thinking brain? Equipping scientists with computational notebooks, or some evolved form of them, might bring their minds to a level with problems now out of reach.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Media</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:449a2836a519/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://chemicalwatch.com/65813/something-for-everyone">
    <title>Something for everyone? 2nd REACH Review has received a mixed response</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-16T12:33:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://chemicalwatch.com/65813/something-for-everyone</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Many would agree that data gaps in registration dossiers are probably the biggest issue and that, as the Commission said, "work is still needed to rectify the important data gaps or the inappropriate adaptations in the registration dossiers". The most recent evidence suggests that about two thirds of dossiers have data gaps. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>Media SystematicMap</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:7e9c81a327e5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SystematicMap"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29654821">
    <title>PRISMA and AMSTAR Show Systematic Reviews of Health Literacy and Cancer Screening are Good Quality</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-16T11:48:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29654821</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The quality of SRs in health literacy and cancer screening was generally good. Systematic reviewers should register or publish their protocols, include PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists when submitting SRs to journals, and self-evaluate their SRs before submission.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:6851479c3018/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.ehn.org/coca-cola-war-on-science-2555599081.html">
    <title>Coca cola war with public health science over obesity</title>
    <dc:date>2018-04-03T19:16:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.ehn.org/coca-cola-war-on-science-2555599081.html</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Global Energy Balance Network would address this problem by recruiting hundreds of scientists into a group that could act as a "credible honest broker in this battle" and "a reliable and trusted source for a balanced, science based view" – all while being covertly controlled by Coca-Cola.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Media</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:e128bea3cb91/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0502-x">
    <title>Software support for environmental evidence synthesis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-29T13:00:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0502-x</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Evidence-based environmental management is being hindered by difficulties in locating, interpreting and synthesizing relevant information among vast scientific outputs. But software developments that allow enhanced collation and sharing of data will help.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Automation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:e09163ba656f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Automation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25753">
    <title>Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-17T09:46:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25753</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Meta-analysis is the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results. Since the term and modern approaches to research synthesis were first introduced in the 1970s, meta-analysis has had a revolutionary effect in many scientific fields, helping to establish evidence-based practice and to resolve seemingly contradictory research outcomes. At the same time, its implementation has engendered criticism and controversy, in some cases general and others specific to particular disciplines. Here we take the opportunity provided by the recent fortieth anniversary of meta-analysis to reflect on the accomplishments, limitations, recent advances and directions for future developments in the field of research synthesis.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:a4563897e0fd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e019703">
    <title>Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review | BMJ Open</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-15T10:05:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e019703</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We identified 18 tools that include an assessment of the risk of reporting bias. There are several limitations of existing tools for assessing risk of reporting biases, in terms of their scope, guidance for reaching risk of bias judgements and measurement properties. Development and evaluation of a new, comprehensive tool could help overcome present limitations.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:fe6ec364c427/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29522827">
    <title>Measurement error is often neglected in medical literature: a systematic review</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-12T11:28:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29522827</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Reporting of measurement error and methods to investigate or correct for it were quantified and characterized. 247 (44%) of the 565 original research publications reported on the presence of measurement error. 83% of these 247 did so with respect to the exposure and/or confounder variables. Only 18 publications (7% of 247) used methods to investigate or correct for measurement error. Consequently, it is difficult for readers to judge the robustness of presented results to the existence of measurement error in the majority of publications in high impact journals.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards MeasurementError</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:dc06d5fbb896/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:MeasurementError"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29505859">
    <title>Systematic reviews do not adequately report, or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-12T11:27:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29505859</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The most reported category in the methods and results sections was 'unexplained loss to follow-up' (n=34 in methods section and n=6 in the results section). Only 19 reported a method to handle missing data in their primary analyses, which was most often complete case analysis. Few reviews (n=9) reported in the methods section conducting sensitivity analysis to judge risk of bias associated with missing outcome data at the level of the meta-analysis; and only five of them presented the results of these analyses in the results section.]]></description>
<dc:subject>MissingOutcomeData RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:2a238eddcc65/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:MissingOutcomeData"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017311960">
    <title>Prenatal exposure to bisphenol A and hyperactivity in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-12T10:54:33+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412017311960</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We used the OHAT systematic review framework to examine if early exposure to BPA has an effect on hyperactivity. We found that, in both rodents and humans, early exposure to BPA is linked to increased hyperactivity. Integration of animal and human evidence finds that BPA is a presumed hazard to human health. We suggest the development of clinical recommendations for avoiding BPA exposure, especially for pregnant women and children.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:666803b83508/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28934091">
    <title>Association between Exposure to p,p'-DDT and Its Metabolite p,p'-DDE with Obesity: Integrated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-11T11:32:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28934091</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We identified seven epidemiological studies reporting prospective associations between exposure to p,p'-DDE and adiposity assessed by body mass index (BMI) z-score. The results from the meta-analysis revealed positive associations between exposure to p,p'-DDE and BMI z-score (β=0.13 BMI z-score (95% CI: 0.01, 0.25) per log increase of p,p'-DDE). Two studies constituted the primary in vivo evidence. Both studies reported positive associations between exposure to p,p'-DDT and increased adiposity in rodents. We identified 19 in vivo studies and 7 in vitro studies that supported the biological plausibility of the obesogenic effects of p,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDE.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:d278b2109e40/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2545/">
    <title>DDT and Obesity in Humans: Exploring the Evidence in a New Way</title>
    <dc:date>2018-03-11T11:27:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2545/</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The current review evaluated the body of research on DDT as an obesogen using what is known as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The authors applied this approach with guidance from two sources: the Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment published by the National Toxicology Program Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT),10 and the Navigation Guide developed by a work group of nearly two dozen environmental health experts.11]]></description>
<dc:subject>Media SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:f6398fd369da/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28741979">
    <title>Systematic review of the literature on triclosan and health outcomes in humans</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-24T11:01:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28741979</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But is this really a systematic review?]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:e379711597f9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2680">
    <title>How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-12T10:23:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2680</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Paper showing how weak or false claims can become perceived as authoritative in the scientific literature, via mechanisms of citation bias, citation distortion, amplification and invention, with the concepts explained. SR methods in evidence synthesis would remedy much of this.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:fe1a0690314f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/news/stop-this-waste-of-people-animals-and-money-1.22554?platform=hootsuite">
    <title>Stop this waste of people, animals and money</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-03T17:17:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/news/stop-this-waste-of-people-animals-and-money-1.22554?platform=hootsuite</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Predatory journals have shoddy reporting and include papers from wealthy nations, find David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Kelly Cobey and colleagues.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:d84b3a9bff54/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5">
    <title>Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools</title>
    <dc:date>2018-02-02T12:52:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-018-0115-5</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process; (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences; (3) allow for offline data extraction; and, (4) support working as a review team.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Tools</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:7820d56bf63c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Tools"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0373-7">
    <title>Evaluating Data Abstraction Assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-29T15:52:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0373-7</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Data abstraction, a critical systematic review step, is time-consuming and prone to errors. Current standards for approaches to data abstraction rest on a weak evidence base. We developed the Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA), a novel software application designed to facilitate the abstraction process by allowing users to (1) view study article PDFs juxtaposed to electronic data abstraction forms linked to a data abstraction system, (2) highlight (or “pin”) the location of the text in the PDF, and (3) copy relevant text from the PDF into the form. We describe the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares the relative effectiveness of (A) DAA-facilitated single abstraction plus verification by a second person, (B) traditional (non-DAA-facilitated) single abstraction plus verification by a second person, and (C) traditional independent dual abstraction plus adjudication to ascertain the accuracy and efficiency of abstraction.]]></description>
<dc:subject>DataExtraction</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:97ab7a3acb12/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:DataExtraction"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3">
    <title>Robust research needs many lines of evidence</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-25T11:37:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Triangulate, because replication alone will get us only so far. In some cases, routine replication might actually make matters worse. Consistent findings could take on the status of confirmed truths, when they actually reflect failings in study design, methods or analytical tools.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Media</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:8d165f54a1f8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/i6TSUnm8pTZbTrxiRHat/full">
    <title>Role of Risk of Bias in Systematic Review for Chemical Risk Assessment: A Case Study in Understanding the Relationship Between Congenital Heart Defects and Exposures to Trichloroethylene</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-23T12:06:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/i6TSUnm8pTZbTrxiRHat/full</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The National Academy of Science has recommended that a risk of bias (RoB; credibility of the link between exposure and outcome) assessment be conducted on studies that are used as primary data sources for hazard identification and dose–response assessment. Few applications of such have been conducted. Using trichloroethylene and congenital heart defects (CHDs) as a case study, we explore the role of RoB in chemical risk assessment using the National Toxicology Program’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation RoB tool.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:a96ae1a3c7e0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187271">
    <title>Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-22T15:30:20+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187271</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE’s indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.]]></description>
<dc:subject>GradingEvidence ExternalValidity</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:366ac733ff25/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:GradingEvidence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:ExternalValidity"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28857505">
    <title>Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-22T13:31:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28857505</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This narrative review provides guidance about the benefits of including gray literature in a systematic review, and sources for searching through gray literature. An illustrative example of a search for evidence within gray literature sources is presented to highlight the potential contributions of such a search to a systematic review. Benefits and challenges of gray literature search methods are discussed, and recommendations made.]]></description>
<dc:subject>GrayLiterature SearchMethods</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:ca1ab526a145/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:GrayLiterature"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SearchMethods"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339245">
    <title>Systematic review and evaluation of aspartame carcinogenicity bioassays using quality criteria</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-22T13:16:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29339245</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Purported SR of quality of primary studies, using Klimisch criteria and a suspiciously ad-hoc approach to critique. Funded by a low-calorie drinks trade group.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRCaseStudy PrimaryStudies RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:b8aee793cb33/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRCaseStudy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:PrimaryStudies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k124">
    <title>We need better animal research, better reported</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-21T12:02:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k124</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[BMJ editorial summarising key lessons from a selection of recently-published articles about the poor quality of preclinical research.]]></description>
<dc:subject>PrimaryStudies Media</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:76afabf90232/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:PrimaryStudies"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Media"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5762161/">
    <title>Unit of analysis issues in laboratory-based research</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-17T08:47:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5762161/</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Many studies in the biomedical research literature report analyses that fail to recognise important data dependencies from multilevel or complex experimental designs. Statistical inferences resulting from such analyses are unlikely to be valid and are often potentially highly misleading. Failure to recognise this as a problem is often referred to in the statistical literature as a unit of analysis (UoA) issue. Here, by analysing two example datasets in a simulation study, we demonstrate the impact of UoA issues on study efficiency and estimation bias, and highlight where errors in analysis can occur. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>StatsMethods</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:5c1c151f2838/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:StatsMethods"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-017-0113-z">
    <title>Inclusive development and prioritization of review questions in a highly controversial field of regulatory science</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-16T11:09:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-017-0113-z</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Paper describing how the EU GRACE framework was tested and implemented in the course of 14 systematic reviews or maps conducted on selected review questions spanning potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of GMOs, placing a particular emphasis on the stakeholder engagement strategy.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ProblemFormulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:0555330c5d86/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:ProblemFormulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4">
    <title>What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-11T14:55:31+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ProblemFormulation SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:96ea410ab000/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:ProblemFormulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3578/abstract">
    <title>A call for action: Improve reporting of research studies to increase the scientific basis for regulatory decision-making</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-08T14:41:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3578/abstract</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskAssessment Reporting</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:40757b6e7ebf/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskAssessment"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Reporting"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/em/c7em00422b#!divAbstract">
    <title>Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation: perspectives for WikiREACH</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-08T14:11:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/em/c7em00422b#!divAbstract</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Experiences with WikiPharma show that there is interest in using peer-reviewed studies in regulatory decision-making. However, tools like WikiPharma require constant updates. Hence, as for “WikiREACH”, effective incentives are needed to motivate researchers to feed in relevant data for regulatory assessments. Besides, support by automated processes can aid in the labour-intensive activity of gathering data.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Automation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:66b1f8d1670a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Automation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29292204">
    <title>Declarations and conflicts of interest in WHO guidelines</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-08T12:57:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29292204</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The majority of WHO guidelines reported their funding sources, and the DOI and COI of external contributors in their guideline documents. However, there is a need for improvement, in particular for reporting of funders and their role, declaration processes, and management of COI.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Interests</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:296961e1cbfa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Interests"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30190-1/fulltext">
    <title>Evidence &amp; Gap Maps: A tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-04T14:45:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)30190-1/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[To provide an accessible resource for researchers, commissioners, and decision makers, EGMs provide thematic collections of evidence structured around a framework which schematically represents the types of interventions and outcomes of relevance to a particular sector. By mapping the existing evidence using this framework, EGMs provide a visual overview of what we know and do not know about the effects of different programs.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SystematicMap</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:f29636c9a0f0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SystematicMap"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29288132">
    <title>Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for risk factors correlate weakly with global risk factor burden: A cross-sectional study</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-02T11:24:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29288132</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Looking at the wrong things: Our study investigated whether Cochrane risk factor SRs align with global risk factor burden, demonstrating a weak positive correlation. Interventions modifying air pollution and dietary risks were sparsely studied, given disease burden.]]></description>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:3c9529b205e9/</dc:identifier>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289761">
    <title>Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: A prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-02T11:13:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289761</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Reliability (95% CI) was moderate for random sequence generation (0.48 (0.43, 0.53)), allocation concealment (0.45 (0.40, 0.51)), and blinding of participants and personnel (0.42 (0.36, 0.47)); fair for overall risk of bias (0.34 (0.25, 0.44)); and slight for blinding of outcome assessors (0.10 (0.06, 0.14)), incomplete outcome data (0.14 (0.08, 0.19)), and selective reporting (0.02 (-0.02, 0.05)). Reliability for blinding of participants and personnel (p<0.001), blinding of outcome assessors (p=0.005), selective reporting (p<0.001), and overall risk of bias (p<0.001) differed by topic. Sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) ranged from 0.20 (0.18, 0.23) to 0.76 (0.72, 0.80) and from 0.61 (0.56, 0.65) to 0.95 (0.93, 0.96), respectively.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Automation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:730c55ed3e74/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Automation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289763">
    <title>A systematic decision-making process on the need for updating clinical practice guidelines proved to be feasible in a pilot study</title>
    <dc:date>2018-01-02T11:11:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289763</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The pilot study comprised 1) limited searches in Pubmed to identify new potentially relevant evidence, 2) an online survey among the members of the CPG group to assess the need for update and 3) a consensus conference for determination and prioritization of guideline sections with a high need for update. Subsequently, we conducted a second online survey to evaluate the procedure.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ProblemFormulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:160d9c1cf452/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:ProblemFormulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29248724">
    <title>Recommendations for Assessing the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-29T14:36:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29248724</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We developed recommendations for assessing the risk of bias of studies of health care interventions specific to framing the focus and scope of risk-of-bias assessment; selecting risk of bias categories; choosing assessment instruments; and conducting, analyzing, and presenting results of risk-of-bias assessments. Key recommendations include transparency and reproducibility of judgments, separating risk of bias from other constructs such as applicability and precision, and evaluating risk of bias per outcome. We recommend against certain past practices, such as focusing on reporting quality, relying solely on study design or numerical quality scores, and automatically downgrading for industry sponsorship.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:738990db262d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29258907">
    <title>Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-29T14:21:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29258907</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Time from search to submission was longer for SRs with published protocols, while at the same time SRs with published protocols were better elaborated and reported. As quality, transparency and currency are cornerstones of SRs, we suggest critically discussing the current practice of publishing SR protocols.]]></description>
<dc:subject>Protocol SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:a9f9c50220db/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:Protocol"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435617310004">
    <title>Fostering responsible research practices is a shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-29T14:17:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435617310004</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Commentary on drivers and solutions to the "reproducibility crisis" in biomedicine. "The big picture seems to be that scientists experience dilemmas and conflicts of interest in daily practice that arise from the fact that what is good for the validity and reliability of science is not always good for their personal career."]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:7c8866d8c7c7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269021">
    <title>No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-29T14:01:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29269021</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Although the infographic format was perceived as more enjoyable for reading, it was not better than a traditional, text-based plain language summary in the translation of knowledge about findings from a Cochrane systematic review.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:900ce73d8eab/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8">
    <title>Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-20T15:15:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SRStandards</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:6f5e6eba8701/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:SRStandards"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30547-4/fulltext">
    <title>A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-18T12:13:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30547-4/fulltext</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It seems this review determined that most systematic reviews are methodologically no better than rapid reviews. So while RRs might give the same results as SRs, it's not saying much if the comparator SRs are giving bad results.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RapidReviews</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:aa64fccac9d7/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RapidReviews"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222059">
    <title>Some Cochrane risk of bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: A meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-11T12:47:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222059</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Twenty reviews including 126 OA trials with a high degree of heterogeneity was included (τˆ2=0.1247). Among RoB domains only patient blinding had an impact on the results (reducing heterogeneity according to τˆ2 <7%). Inadequate blinding of patients yielded larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.29, P=0.035). The most important study characteristic was trial size (heterogeneity reduced by 25%), with small trials reporting larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.42, P<0.001).]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:cfc0eebe3c25/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29203419">
    <title>Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-11T12:46:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29203419</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When considering the index (primary or first reported) meta-analysis of each SR, just over half (62/110 [56%]) used the random-effects model, but few (5/62 [8%]) interpreted the meta-analytic effect correctly (as the average of the intervention effects across all studies). A statistical test for funnel plot asymmetry was reported in 17/110 (15%) SRs, however, in only 4/17 (24%) did the test include the recommended number of at least 10 studies of varying size. Subgroup analyses accompanied 42/110 (38%) index meta-analyses, but findings were not interpreted with respect to a test for interaction in 29/42 (69%) cases, and the issue of potential confounding in the subgroup analyses was not raised in any SR.]]></description>
<dc:subject>StatsMethods</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:beab6cf076e4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:StatsMethods"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29217451">
    <title>Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics</title>
    <dc:date>2017-12-11T12:42:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29217451</link>
    <dc:creator>pwhaley</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Our interpretation of the results is limited by imprecise estimates. There is some indication that between-trial heterogeneity could be partially explained by reported design characteristics, and hence adjustment for bias could potentially improve accuracy of meta-analysis results.]]></description>
<dc:subject>RiskOfBias</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/b:2b11bbb0e79b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:pwhaley/t:RiskOfBias"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>