In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.

Input: Consider Input: Systematic literature reviews are widely used as an aid to evidence based decision making. For example, reviews of randomised controlled trials are regularly used to answer questions about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The high profile of systematic reviews as a cornerstone of evidence based medicine, however, has led to several misconceptions about their purpose and methods. Among these is the belief that systematic reviews are applicable only to randomised controlled trials and that they are incapable of dealing with other forms of evidence, such as from non-randomised studies or qualitative research. The systematic literature review is a method of locating, appraising, and synthesising evidence. The value of regularly updated systematic reviews in the assessment of effectiveness of healthcare interventions was dramatically illustrated by Antman and colleagues, who showed that review articles failed to mention advances in treatment identified by an updated systematic review.1 It is nearly a quarter of a century since Gene Glass coined the term "meta-analysis" to refer to the quantitative synthesis of the results of primary studies.2 The importance of making explicit efforts to limit bias in the review of literature, however, has been emphasised by social scientists at least since the 1960s.3 In recent years systematic reviews have found an important role in health services research, and the growing interest in evidence based approaches to decision making makes it likely that their use will increase. Not everybody accepts that systematic reviews are necessary or desirable, and as one moves further away from the clinical applications of systematic reviews cynicism about their utility grows. Several arguments are commonly used to reject a wider role for systematic reviews, and these arguments are often based on major misconceptions about the history, purpose, methods, and uses of systematic reviews. I have examined eight common myths about

Output: Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT In patients with brain metastases, it is unclear whether adding up-front whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has beneficial effects on mortality or neurologic function compared with SRS alone.
OBJECTIVE To determine if WBRT combined with SRS results in improvements in survival, brain tumor control, functional preservation rate, and frequency of neurologic death.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized controlled trial of 132 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, each less than 3 cm in diameter, enrolled at 11 hospitals in Japan between October 1999 and December 2003.
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive WBRT plus SRS (65 patients) or SRS alone (67 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were brain tumor recurrence, salvage brain treatment, functional preservation, toxic effects of radiation, and cause of death.
RESULTS The median survival time and the 1-year actuarial survival rate were 7.5 months and 38.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.7%-50.3%) in the WBRT + SRS group and 8.0 months and 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 17.6%-39.2%) for SRS alone (P = .42). The 12-month brain tumor recurrence rate was 46.8% in the WBRT + SRS group and 76.4% for SRS alone group (P<.001). Salvage brain treatment was less frequently required in the WBRT + SRS group (n = 10) than with SRS alone (n = 29) (P<.001). Death was attributed to neurologic causes in 22.8% of patients in the WBRT + SRS group and in 19.3% of those treated with SRS alone (P = .64). There were no significant differences in systemic and neurologic functional preservation and toxic effects of radiation.
CONCLUSIONS Compared with SRS alone, the use of WBRT plus SRS did not improve survival for patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, but intracranial relapse occurred considerably more frequently in those who did not receive WBRT. Consequently, salvage treatment is frequently required when up-front WBRT is not used.
TRIAL REGISTRATION umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: C000000412.

Output: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial.

Input: Consider Input: Cells of the innate immune system interact with pathogens via conserved pattern-recognition receptors, whereas cells of the adaptive immune system recognize pathogens through diverse, antigen-specific receptors that are generated by somatic DNA rearrangement. Invariant natural killer T (iNKT) cells are a subset of lymphocytes that bridge the innate and adaptive immune systems. Although iNKT cells express T cell receptors that are generated by somatic DNA rearrangement, these receptors are semi-invariant and interact with a limited set of lipid and glycolipid antigens, thus resembling the pattern-recognition receptors of the innate immune system. Functionally, iNKT cells most closely resemble cells of the innate immune system, as they rapidly elicit their effector functions following activation, and fail to develop immunological memory. iNKT cells can become activated in response to a variety of stimuli and participate in the regulation of various immune responses. Activated iNKT cells produce several cytokines with the capacity to jump-start and modulate an adaptive immune response. A variety of glycolipid antigens that can differentially elicit distinct effector functions in iNKT cells have been identified. These reagents have been employed to test the hypothesis that iNKT cells can be harnessed for therapeutic purposes in human diseases. Here, we review the innate-like properties and functions of iNKT cells and discuss their interactions with other cell types of the immune system.
Output: Invariant natural killer T cells: bridging innate and adaptive immunity