Introduction:
In 2021, we reported a proof-of-concept study which demonstrated that geographical location (where you sat) affected Google search results (what you see). Using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to mimic the effect of geographic location, we were able to prove that a person based in Australia would see different Google search results to a person based in America.
Now we consider if using a VPN might be an effect modifier compared to searches conducted by humans, physically in those locations.
Methods:
We sampled five countries using the same search string. We compared the search results retrieved using a VPN concurrently with a live search conducted by a human at each location. .
Results: Results TBA at a later date.
Discussion/Conclusion: There is little guidance on the method of websearching, despite it being a recommended supplementary search method for systematic reviews. This study extends our previous work and will show if the use of VPN is reliable or not compared to a human searcher in the country of interest.

Introduction: The Cochrane Handbook recommends searching clinical trials registries for systematic reviews of interventions, including specifically clinicaltrials.gov (CTG). Trial records from CTG are also indexed in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Central and, as of October 2025, in the Embase database.
Current guidance recommends searching CTG through the native platform as well as the ICTRP platform, due to differences in search functionality and indexing of the records. With Embase now including CTG records, we sought to determine whether all relevant CTG records can be retrieved from searching Embase.
Methods: We conducted an exploratory information retrieval study on the recall of relevant CTG records within an Embase search. We used search strategies and included studies from previously published Cochrane reviews of interventions, published in 2025. Cochrane reviews that searched Embase, CTG, and ICTRP were eligible for inclusion. We replicated their searches in each source, and exported the records. We then checked each retrieval set against all CTG trial records/numbers mentioned in the ‘references to studies included in this review’ section of each review, and calculated recall for each source. For missed CTG records, we confirmed whether it was present in the platform. And in the case of Embase, we explored why some were missed from the search.
Results: Results TBA
Discussion/Conclusion: The findings of this study provides initial evidence on whether CTG records can be reasonably retrieved through a search of Embase, and whether the existing evidence stating that both CTG and ICTRP should be searched separately is still true.

Introduction:
In 2025, the creation of the RAISE (Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Evidence Synthesis) guidelines signaled increased interest in exploring ethical use of artificial intelligence tools for improving sustainability in knowledge synthesis (KS) work. Over the last 3 years, there has been an increase in the development and availability of generative AI tools, including chatbots, AI academic search engines, and AI add-ons/assistants connected to traditional databases. As librarians who support KS, we were interested in finding out whether health librarians were using generative-AI tools in their KS practice, and if so, when and how.

Methods:
We used a cross-sectional survey for our study. Eligibility was restricted to librarians currently supporting at least one health sciences program, and involved in knowledge synthesis as a consultant, collaborator, or both. The survey included questions related to demographics and librarians’ use of generative AI tools in the context of their roles as educational consultants and collaborators.

Results: To be added

Discussion & Conclusion: To be added