The Implications of Using Internet Search Engines in Structured Scientific Reviews

The pipeline starts in medical school: characterizing clinician-educator training programs for U.S. medical students

In the past forty years, clinician-educators have become indispensable to academic medicine. Numerous clinician-educator-training programs exist within graduate medical education (GME) as clinician-educator tracks (CETs). However, there is a call for the clinician-educator pipeline to begin earlier. This work aims to identify and characterize clinician-educator track-like programs (CETLs) available in undergraduate medical education (UME). We developed an algorithm of 20 individual keyword queries to search the website of each U.S. allopathic medical school for CETLs. We performed the web search between March to April 2021 and repeated the search between July and September 2021. The search identified CETLs for 79 (51%) of the 155 U.S. allopathic medical schools. The identified CETLs commonly address the clinician-educator competency of educational theory (86%, 68/79), are formally organized as concentrations or analogous structures (52%, 41/79), and span all four years of medical school (37%, 29/79). The prevalence of CETLs varies with geography and medical school ranking. We provide an overview of the current state of CETLs as assessed from institutional websites. To create a future with a sustainable output of skilled clinician-educators, UME must continue to increase the number and quality of CETLs.

Tool to Retrieve Less-Filtered Information from the Internet

While users benefit greatly from the latest communication technology, with popular platforms such as social networking services including Facebook or search engines such as Google, scientists warn of the effects of a filter bubble at this time. A solution to escape from filtered information is urgently needed. We implement an approach based on the mechanism of a metasearch engine to present less-filtered information to users. We develop a practical application named MosaicSearch to select search results from diversified categories of sources collected from multiple search engines. To determine the power of MosaicSearch, we conduct an evaluation to assess retrieval quality. According to the results, MosaicSearch is more intelligent compared to other general-purpose search engines: it generates a smaller number of links while providing users with almost the same amount of objective information. Our approach contributes to transparent information retrieval. This application helps users play a main role in choosing the information they consume.

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016

To evaluate the characteristics, trend, and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of nuclear medicine. The following data were extracted: journal name, impact factor, type of study, topics with cancer type, imaging modalities, authors (number, country, affiliation, presence of nuclear medicine specialists and statisticians, discordance between the first and corresponding authors), funding, methodological quality, methods used for quality assessment, and statistical methods.We included 185 nuclear medicine articles. Meta-analyses (n = 164; 88.6%) were published about 7 times more frequently than systematic reviews. Oncology was the most commonly studied topic (n = 125, 67.6%). The first authors were most frequently located in China (n = 73; 39.5%). PET was the most commonly used modality (n = 150; 81.1%). Both the number of authors and the ratio of discordance between the first and corresponding authors tended to progressively increase over time.The mean AMSTAR score increased over time (5.77 in 2005-2008, 6.71 in 2009-2012, and 7.44 in 2013-2016). The proportion of articles with quality assessment increased significantly (20/26 in 2005-2008, 54/65 in 2009-2012, and 79/94 in 2013-2016). The most commonly used assessment tool was quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 85; 54.9%).The number and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine have significantly increased over the review period; however, the quality of these articles varies. Efforts to overcome specific weaknesses of the methodologies can provide opportunities for quality improvement.

Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility

BACKGROUND

Using internet search engines (such as Google search) in systematic literature reviews is increasingly becoming a ubiquitous part of search methodology. In order to integrate the vast quantity of available knowledge, literature mostly focuses on systematic reviews, considered to be principal sources of scientific evidence at all practical levels. Any possible individual methodological flaws present in these systematic reviews have the potential to become systemic.

MAIN TEXT

This particular bias, that could be referred to as (re)search bubble effect, is introduced because of inherent, personalized nature of internet search engines that tailors results according to derived user preferences based on unreproducible criteria. In other words, internet search engines adjust their user's beliefs and attitudes, leading to the creation of a personalized (re)search bubble, including entries that have not been subjected to rigorous peer review process. The internet search engine algorithms are in a state of constant flux, producing differing results at any given moment, even if the query remains identical. There are many more subtle ways of introducing unwanted variations and synonyms of search queries that are used autonomously, detached from user insight and intent. Even the most well-known and respected systematic literature reviews do not seem immune to the negative implications of the search bubble effect, affecting reproducibility.

CONCLUSION

Although immensely useful and justified by the need for encompassing the entirety of knowledge, the practice of including internet search engines in systematic literature reviews is fundamentally irreconcilable with recent emphasis on scientific reproducibility and rigor, having a profound impact on the discussion of the limits of scientific epistemology. Scientific research that is not reproducible, may still be called science, but represents one that should be avoided. Our recommendation is to use internet search engines as an additional literature source, primarily in order to validate initial search strategies centered on bibliographic databases.