What you see depends on where you sit: The effect of geographical location on web-searching for systematic reviews: A case study

There is limited guidance on how to web-search in systematic reviews and concern relates to the reproducibility of searches using search engines such as Google. The aim of this paper is to address one potential source of variation in Google searches: does the geographical location of a researcher affect Google search returns? Using a virtual private network, we ran the same web-search for the medical technology Dasatinib in 12 different countries. Two researchers independently extracted the search returns by country organised by page rank. We compared: C1. any difference in the items returned by Google searches between countries and C2. any difference in the page rank of items returned between countries. Searches were undertaken on Monday September 28th 2020. From 12 countries, 43 items were identified. For C1: 19 items were common to all 12 countries. Twenty-four items were missed by searches in some countries. This means that there were differences in search returns between countries. For C2: a randomised trial reported by Raddich et al was the first search return for all countries. All other items, common to all countries, varied in their page-rank. We find that geographic location would appear to influence Google search returns based on the findings of this case study. The findings suggest that recording the location of the researcher undertaking web-searching may now be an important factor to report alongside detail on steps taken to minimise personalisation of web-searches covered by recent guidance. This finding also has implications for stopping-rules.

Properties of CD34+ CML stem/progenitor cells that correlate with different clinical responses to imatinib mesylate

Imatinib mesylate (IM) induces clinical remissions in chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients but IM resistance remains a problem. We recently identified several features of CML CD34(+) stem/progenitor cells expected to confer resistance to BCR-ABL-targeted therapeutics. From a study of 25 initially chronic-phase patients, we now demonstrate that some, but not all, of these parameters correlate with subsequent clinical response to IM therapy. CD34(+) cells from the 14 IM nonresponders demonstrated greater resistance to IM than the 11 IM responders in colony-forming cell assays in vitro (P < .001) and direct sequencing of cloned transcripts from CD34(+) cells further revealed a higher incidence of BCR-ABL kinase domain mutations in the IM nonresponders (10%-40% vs 0%-20% in IM responders, P < .003). In contrast, CD34(+) cells from IM nonresponders and IM responders were not distinguished by differences in BCR-ABL or transporter gene expression. Interestingly, one BCR-ABL mutation (V304D), predicted to destabilize the interaction between p210(BCR-ABL) and IM, was detectable in 14 of 20 patients. T315I mutant CD34(+) cells found before IM treatment in 2 of 20 patients examined were preferentially amplified after IM treatment. Thus, 2 properties of pretreatment CML stem/progenitor cells correlate with subsequent response to IM therapy. Prospective assessment of these properties may allow improved patient management.