Start Step 6 for Dec r51d17

Ref. drzhelnov/zheln.github.io#189

zheln/Worked_Time_Log.md

@@ -7,4 +7,4 @@
 | Wk 49, 2020 | 43h 2m | 48h |
 | Wk 50, 2020 | 15h 20m | 48h |
 | Wk 51, 2020 | 26h 26m | 48h |
-| Wk 52, 2020 | 3h 37m | 48h |
+| Wk 52, 2020 | 4h 53m | 48h |

zheln/general-makeposti.sh

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 #!/bin/bash
 v='3.1.1'
-edit=true
-date='2020-12-21'
-count=696
+edit=false
+date='2020-12-17'
+count=704
 
-coreutils=true
+coreutils=false
 rm_record_set=true
 
 summary_set='summary-systematic-set'

zheln/posts-edit/2020/12/17/0295-2020-12-17-51.md

@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality (CV), and rates of myocardial infa
 
 Some of the top results:
 
-* [Sakima 2019][Sakima2019483495] – full text collected. Not referenced by Arguedas et al., although the research question of Sakima et al. is identical to that of Arguedas et al.
-* [Reboussin 2018][Reboussin2018e116e135] — successfully collected the full text with [a correction][Hypertension2018e145]. One of the review questions is exactly the same as in the review by Arguedas et al. However, this review is not referenced by the authors of the index review.
+* [Sakima 2019][Sakima2019483495] – full text collected. Not referenced by Arguedas et al., although the research question of Sakima et al. is identical to that of Arguedas et al. Also, of note, this review was first published online on Apr 5, 2019, whereas the searches were conducted on May 28–29, 2019, during the index review conduct.
+* [Reboussin 2018][Reboussin2018e116e135] — successfully collected the full text with [a correction][Hypertension2018e145]. One of the review questions is exactly the same as in the review by Arguedas et al. However, this review is not referenced by the authors of the index review; at the same time, the associated guideline document by Whelton et al. is referenced.
 
 These two are important reviews targeting practically the same population, interventions, and outcomes, and they were not referenced by the original authors. Therefore, I first made an assessment that this review was duplicate.
 
@@ -43,6 +43,14 @@ The index review is an update of the previous 2009 review, so it is also worth l
 Thus, all in all, I don’t see that the review is importantly duplicate.
 
 ## Passed or Failed Replication?
+
+* Verbatim search strategies for all major databases searched are available. This facilitates replication.
+* The search process is not reported in detail; namely, no information is provided regarding the number of references retrieved from each search and details are available as to how these references were merged.
+* At the same time, I do not have access to all the databases the authors searched (e.g., Embase, ProQuest, Web of Science, etc.).
+* Therefore, I fail to definitely replicate the initial set of records.
+* At the same time, I do have access to Scopus whose coverage is somewhat similar to that of Embase.
+* From the other hand, I do not have access to Ovid, so will need to translate the search strategies. This is usually done inexactly.
+* Will use [Medline Transpose](https://medlinetranspose.github.io/documentation.html) for the MEDLINE searches and manual translation using the [official Ovid Embase field guide](https://ospguides.ovid.com/OSPguides/embase.htm) for the Embase searches.
 <!-- It’s time for the Jedi to end -->
 <!-- Enter Level 1313 -->
 <!-- Exit Level 1313 -->