***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: A system has been constructed to evaluate the design , implementation , and analysis of  r and omized control trials ( RCT ) . The degree of quadruple blinding ( the r and omization process , the physicians and patients as to therapy , and the physicians as to ongoing results ) is considered to be the most important aspect of any trial . The analytic techniques are scored with the same emphasis as is placed on the control of bias in the planning and implementation of the studies . Description of the patient and treatment material s and the measurement of various controls of quality have less weight . An index of quality of a RCT is proposed with its pros and cons . If published papers were to approximate these principles , there would be a marked improvement in the quality of r and omized control trials . Finally , a reasonable st and ard design and conduct of trials will facilitate the interpretation of those with conflicting results and help in making valid combinations of undersized trials Mixed treatment comparison ( MTC ) meta- analysis is a generalization of st and ard pairwise meta- analysis for A vs B trials , to data structures that include , for example , A vs B , B vs C , and A vs C trials . There are two roles for MTC : one is to strengthen inference concerning the relative efficacy of two treatments , by including both ' direct ' and ' indirect ' comparisons . The other is to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments , in order for example to select the best treatment . In this paper , we present a range of Bayesian hierarchical models using the Markov chain Monte Carlo software WinBUGS . These are multivariate r and om effects models that allow for variation in true treatment effects across trials . We consider models where the between-trials variance is homogeneous across treatment comparisons as well as heterogeneous variance models . We also compare models with fixed ( unconstrained ) baseline study effects with models with r and om baselines drawn from a common distribution . These models are applied to an illustrative data set and posterior parameter distributions are compared . We discuss model critique and model selection , illustrating the role of Bayesian deviance analysis , and node-based model criticism . The assumptions underlying the MTC models and their parameterization are also discussed Most systematic review s rely substantially on the assessment of the method ological quality of the individual trials . The aim of this study was to obtain consensus among experts about a set of generic core items for quality assessment of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) . The invited participants were experts in the field of quality assessment of RCTs . The initial item pool contained all items from existing criteria lists . Subsequently , we reduced the number of items by using the Delphi consensus technique . Each Delphi round comprised a question naire , an analysis , and a feedback report . The feedback report included staff team decisions made on the basis of the analysis and their justification . A total of 33 international experts agreed to participate , of whom 21 completed all question naires . The initial item pool of 206 items was reduced to 9 items in three Delphi rounds . The final criteria list ( the Delphi list ) was satisfactory to all participants . It is a starting point on the way to a minimum reference st and ard for RCTs on many different research topics . This list is not intended to replace , but rather to be used alongside , existing criteria lists Assessing the quality of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) is important and relatively new . Quality gives us an estimate of the likelihood that the results are a valid estimate of the truth . We present an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists developed to assess quality . Twenty-five scales and nine checklists have been developed to assess quality . The checklists are most useful in providing investigators with guidelines as to what information should be included in reporting RCTs . The scales give readers a quantitative index of the likelihood that the reported methodology and results are free of bias . There are several shortcomings with these scales . Future scale development is likely to be most beneficial if questions common to all trials are assessed , if the scale is easy to use , and if it is developed with sufficient rigor This study aims to compare h and search ing to a basic MEDLINE search for the identification of reports of r and omized trials in specialized health care journals . Twenty-two specialized health care journals , published in the U.K. , were h and search ed for all reports of controlled trials ( as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration ) . The reports of trials , which were judged to be definitely r and omized , were identified from a r and om sample of three years per journal and form one element of this study . A MEDLINE search using the publication type terms ' r and omized controlled trial ' and ' controlled clinical trial ' was also performed for the same journal years . The reports of trials retrieved by h and search ing were then compared against those retrieved from the MEDLINE search , to identify differences in retrieval between the two techniques . Reports of r and omized trials identified by the MEDLINE search but not found by h and search ing were individually assessed to see if they met the Cochrane eligibility criteria for a report of a r and omized trial . A total of 714 reports of r and omized trials were found by using a combination of both h and search ing and MEDLINE search ing . Of these , 369 ( 52 per cent ) were identified only by h and search ing and 32 ( 4 per cent ) were identified only by MEDLINE search ing . Of the reports identified only by h and search ing , 252 had no MEDLINE record , of which 232 ( 92 per cent ) were meeting abstract s or published in supplements ; 117 ( 25 per cent ) of the 462 reports of r and omized trials which had a MEDLINE record were missed by the electronic search because they did not have either of the publication type terms ' r and omized controlled trial ' or ' controlled clinical trial ' . This proportion varied depending on when the reports of r and omized trials were published ( that is , before or after the introduction of the MEDLINE publication type terms above ) . The highest additional yield from h and search ing compared to MEDLINE search ing was for reports of r and omized trials published prior to 1991 and from h and search ing the non- MEDLINE indexed parts of a journal . The results of this study suggest that a combination of MEDLINE and h and search ing is required to identify adequately reports of r and omized trials In a retrospective survey , 487 research projects approved by the Central Oxford Research Ethics Committee between 1984 and 1987 , were studied for evidence of publication bias . As of May , 1990 , 285 of the studies had been analysed by the investigators , and 52 % of these had been published . Studies with statistically significant results were more likely to be published than those finding no difference between the study groups ( adjusted odds ratio [ OR ] 2.32 ; 95 % confidence interval [ Cl ] 1.25 - 4.28 ) . Studies with significant results were also more likely to lead to a greater number of publications and presentations and to be published in journals with a high citation impact factor . An increased likelihood of publication was also associated with a high rating by the investigator of the importance of the study results , and with increasing sample size . The tendency towards publication bias was greater with observational and laboratory-based experimental studies ( OR = 3.79 ; 95 % Cl = 1.47 - 9.76 ) than with r and omised clinical trials ( OR = 0.84 ; 95 % Cl = 0.34 - 2.09 ) . We have confirmed the presence of publication bias in a cohort of clinical research studies . These findings suggest that conclusions based only on a review of published data should be interpreted cautiously , especially for observational studies . Improved strategies are needed to identify the results of unpublished as well as published studies Dr. Joseph Lau is a world-leading expert in meta- analysis and systematic review s. Currently a professor in the Department of Health Services , Policy and Practice and co-director of the Center for Evidence -based Medicine at Brown University , Professor Lau has applied evidence -based methods to a variety of clinical , biomedical and healthcare topics ; has developed reliable and efficient methods and tools to conduct systematic review s and meta-analyses ; and has advanced an underst and ing on the impact of factors that may contribute to differences of results in scientific studies . His past research includes cumulative meta- analysis of r and omized controlled trials , comparison of results from large trials and meta-analyses of small trials , effect of baseline risk in the interpretation of clinical trial results , and empirical evaluation of existing methods of combining data . His current focus is on a Web-based repository of systematic review data , review s of diagnostic tests , nutrition , clinical practice guidelines , and dissemination of evidence -based methods to varied health-care disciplines . This report is a conversation from an adapted version of an interview , more or less chronologically arranged , between Joseph C. Cappelleri as interviewer and Joseph Lau as interviewee , with Meghan Ingerick recording and transcribing the interview Abstract An increased mortality in early breast cancer can be correlated to the routine use of local postoperative irradiation . The decreased survival is statistically significant . Of controlled clinical trials so far published , all six , including more than 3400 patients , demonstrate decreased survival of between 1 and 10 % in irradiated patients when compared with those treated by mastectomy alone 
    Output:
    
The article ends by explaining how Simonton 's chance configuration theory and Campbell 's evolutionary epistemology can illuminate why  meta- analysis  occurred with these scholars when it did and not in medical sciences