When searching for scholarly documents, researchers often stick with the same familiar handful of databases. Yet, just beyond these limited horizons lie dozens of alternatives with which they could search more effectively, whether for quick lookups or thorough searches in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Searchsmart.org is a free website that guides researchers to particularly suitable search options for their particular disciplines, offering a wide array of resources, including search engines, aggregators, journal platforms, repositories, clinical trials databases, bibliographic databases, and digital libraries. Search Smart currently evaluates the coverage and functionality of more than a hundred leading scholarly databases, including most major multidisciplinary databases and many that are discipline-specific. Search Smart's primary use cases involve database-selection decisions as part of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or bibliometric analyses. Researchers can use up to 583 criteria to filter and sort recommendations of databases and the interfaces through which they can be accessed for user-friendliness, search rigor, or relevance. With specific pre-defined filter settings, researchers can quickly identify particularly suitable databases for Boolean keyword searching and forward or backward citation searching. Overall, Search Smart's recommendations help researchers to discover knowledge more effectively and efficiently by selecting the more suitable databases for their tasks.

We respond to discussant comments on our paper "Twenty years of network meta-analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments" (https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1700) and raise some additional points for consideration, including: the way in which methodological guidance is generated; integration of the estimand framework with evidence synthesis; and implications of the European Joint Clinical Assessment. We ask: what properties are required of population adjustment methods to enable transparent and consistent decision-making? We also ask why individual patient data is not routinely made available to re-imbursement authorities and clinical guideline developers.

This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

We demonstrate that all meta-analyses of partial correlations are biased, and yet hundreds of meta-analyses of partial correlation coefficients (PCCs) are conducted each year widely across economics, business, education, psychology, and medical research. To address these biases, we offer a new weighted average, UWLS+3 . UWLS+3 is the unrestricted weighted least squares weighted average that makes an adjustment to the degrees of freedom that are used to calculate partial correlations and, by doing so, renders trivial any remaining meta-analysis bias. Our simulations also reveal that these meta-analysis biases are small-sample biases (n < 200), and a simple correction factor of (n - 2)/(n - 1) greatly reduces these small-sample biases along with Fisher's z. In many applications where primary studies typically have hundreds or more observations, partial correlations can be meta-analyzed in standard ways with only negligible bias. However, in other fields in the social and the medical sciences that are dominated by small samples, these meta-analysis biases are easily avoidable by our proposed methods.

Drug repurposing refers to the process of discovering new therapeutic uses for existing medicines. Compared to traditional drug discovery, drug repurposing is attractive for its speed, cost, and reduced risk of failure. However, existing approaches for drug repurposing involve complex, computationally-intensive analytical methods that are not widely used in practice. Instead, repurposing decisions are often based on subjective judgments from limited empirical evidence. In this article, we develop a novel Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) framework that can predict the efficacy of an approved treatment in a new indication and thereby identify candidate treatments for repurposing. We obtain predictions using two main steps: first, we use standard NMA modeling to estimate average relative effects from a network comprised of treatments studied in both indications in addition to one treatment studied in only one indication. Then, we model the correlation between relative effects using various strategies that differ in how they model treatments across indications and within the same drug class. We evaluate the predictive performance of each model using a simulation study and find that the model minimizing root mean squared error of the posterior median for the candidate treatment depends on the amount of available data, the level of correlation between indications, and whether treatment effects differ, on average, by drug class. We conclude by discussing an illustrative example in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and find that the candidate treatment has a high probability of success in a future trial.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) have several benefits over standard aggregate data meta-analyses, including the consideration of additional participants, follow-up time, and the joint consideration of study- and participant-level heterogeneity for improved diagnostic and prognostic model development and evaluation. However, IPD-MAs are resource-intensive and require careful budgeting of time from data contributing groups, a dedicated management team, diversity of expertise, clearly documented data sharing and authorship agreements, and consistent and clear communication. We present a toolkit to facilitate the implementation and management of IPD-MAs, from study recruitment to retrospective harmonization. The toolkit was developed and refined over our work on multiple multinational IPD-MA projects over the last 13 years. The toolkit's budget and email templates, agreements, project management spreadsheets, and standard operating procedures are meant to facilitate routine IPD-MA tasks to expedite implementing and managing future IPD-MA projects.

Network meta-analysis has played an important role in evidence-based medicine for assessing the comparative effectiveness of multiple available treatments. The prediction interval has been one of the standard outputs in recent network meta-analysis as an effective measure that enables simultaneous assessment of uncertainties in treatment effects and heterogeneity among studies. To construct the prediction interval, a large-sample approximating method based on the t-distribution has generally been applied in practice; however, recent studies have shown that similar t-approximation methods for conventional pairwise meta-analyses can substantially underestimate the uncertainty under realistic situations. In this article, we performed simulation studies to assess the validity of the current standard method for network meta-analysis, and we show that its validity can also be violated under realistic situations. To address the invalidity issue, we developed two new methods to construct more accurate prediction intervals through bootstrap and Kenward-Roger-type adjustment. In simulation experiments, the two proposed methods exhibited better coverage performance and generally provided wider prediction intervals than the ordinary t-approximation. We also developed an R package, PINMA (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/PINMA/), to perform the proposed methods using simple commands. We illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods through applications to two real network meta-analyses.