A review of 3,479 kidney transplant recipients found possible advantages and a potential drawback associated with double-J stents compared with single-J stents.
A benchmark of three large language models found a clear gap between basic study information and statistical results, with missing fields making up most analyzed errors.
A methods analysis found that exact within-study variance calculations and BGLMM generally performed better than a standard approximate logit approach when diagnostic-test studies were sparse or small.
A peer-reviewed systematic review found sparse reporting of treatment switching and no formal adjustment for it in the oncology meta-analyses examined.