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.

[EX Q]: 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
[EX A]: Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.

[EX Q]: Background New sepsis and septic shock definitions could change the epidemiology of sepsis because of differences in criteria. We therefore compared the sepsis populations identified by the old and new definitions. Methods We used a high-quality, national, intensive care unit (ICU) database of 654 918 consecutive admissions to 189 adult ICUs in England, from January 2011 to December 2015. Primary outcome was acute hospital mortality. We compared old (Sepsis-2) and new (Sepsis-3) incidence, outcomes, trends in outcomes, and predictive validity of sepsis and septic shock populations. Results From among 197 724 Sepsis-2 severe sepsis and 197 142 Sepsis-3 sepsis cases, we identified 153 257 Sepsis-2 septic shock and 39 262 Sepsis-3 septic shock cases. The extrapolated population incidence of Sepsis-3 sepsis and Sepsis-3 septic shock was 101.8 and 19.3 per 100 000 person-years, respectively, in 2015. Sepsis-2 severe sepsis and Sepsis-3 sepsis had similar incidence, similar mortality and showed significant risk-adjusted improvements in mortality over time. Sepsis-3 septic shock had a much higher Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, greater mortality and no risk-adjusted trends in mortality improvement compared with Sepsis-2 septic shock. ICU admissions identified either as Sepsis-3 sepsis or septic shock and as Sepsis-2 severe sepsis or septic shock had significantly greater risk-adjusted odds of death compared with non-sepsis admissions (P<0.001). The predictive validity was greatest for Sepsis-3 septic shock. Conclusions In an ICU database, compared with Sepsis-2, Sepsis-3 identifies a similar sepsis population with 92% overlap and much smaller septic shock population with improved predictive validity.
[EX A]: Epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock in critical care units: comparison between sepsis-2 and sepsis-3 populations using a national critical care database

[EX Q]: The exploration of brain epigenomes, which consist of various types of DNA methylation and covalent histone modifications, is providing new and unprecedented insights into the mechanisms of neural development, neurological disease and aging. Traditionally, chromatin defects in the brain were considered static lesions of early development that occurred in the context of rare genetic syndromes, but it is now clear that mutations and maladaptations of the epigenetic machinery cover a much wider continuum that includes adult-onset neurodegenerative disease. Here, we describe how recent advances in neuroepigenetics have contributed to an improved mechanistic understanding of developmental and degenerative brain disorders, and we discuss how they could influence the development of future therapies for these conditions.
[EX A]:
Epigenetic mechanisms in neurological disease