CHEST Guidelines-Response

Response_chest (21)

Pdf Summary

The document consists of a letter from Dr. Ran Xu addressing several critiques of a meta-analysis published by Serafim et al. concerning the diagnosis and management of sepsis. Dr. Xu highlights key concerns: the inadequacy of the search terms provided for replicating the study's results, the absence of a manual search protocol, the restriction to English-language studies introducing potential language bias, and the inclusion of studies with varying sample sizes, potentially affecting the robustness of the findings.<br /><br />In response, the authors of the meta-analysis, including Drs. Serafim, Gomes, Salluh, and Póvoa, clarify these points. They explain that the minimal discrepancy in search results is due to standard year-end processing updates by the National Library of Medicine. They confirm that a manual search was indeed performed and documented, contrary to Dr. Xu's assertion. Regarding language bias, the authors argue that restricting to English, while common in meta-analyses, is a practical necessity due to the multitude of languages in scientific publications. They further defend their methodology concerning study sample sizes, asserting the robustness of their results through statistically significant differences and narrow confidence intervals, which suggest the power and validity of the meta-analysis' conclusions.<br /><br />Overall, the exchange reflects Dr. Xu's respectful critique, intended to enhance the accuracy of the meta-analysis, and a clarifying response from the authors emphasizing the methodological rigor and validity of their scientific approach. The discussion pertains to optimizing recurring processes in meta-analyses like search strategies and language inclusivity while balancing practical constraints.

Keywords

meta-analysis

sepsis diagnosis

search terms

language bias

sample size

methodology

Dr. Ran Xu

Serafim et al.

scientific publications

statistical significance