Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with or without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023 for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We did random effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5% to 64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95%CI 1.43-3.31; Number needed to treat [NNT] 7; Moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; Moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95%CI 0.87-6.83; Risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; Low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95%CI 1.00-7.62; Risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm [NNH], 9; Moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine-responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Certainty of evidence, why?

Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Allergen immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD. METHODS: As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.

Certainty of evidence, why? / Certeza das evidências, por quê?

ABSTRACT Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

RESUMO Para tomar a melhor decisão clínica, é preciso compreender as evidências a respeito dos benefícios, malefícios e ônus das alternativas de manejo. Revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises que sejam realizadas com rigor oferecem resumos precisos das evidências. No entanto, é possível que esses resumos avaliem apenas as evidências cujo grau de certeza é baixo e, ao fazê-lo, ressaltem que provavelmente não existe uma decisão única que será a melhor para todos os pacientes. O Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) é um método sistemático e transparente para avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências em revisões sistemáticas. Neste artigo, abordaremos a importância de avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências; explicaremos como o sistema GRADE classifica o grau de certeza das evidências provenientes de revisões sistemáticas e apresentaremos o evidence to decision framework (quadro para a avaliação de evidências) do GRADE para decidir se as evidências se traduzem em recomendações fortes ou fracas nas diretrizes de prática clínica.

Association between Helicobacter pylori infection and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for Asian and non-Asian population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Several studies have revealed a positive correlation between a Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection and the risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This meta-analysis was conducted to explore further the relationship between HP infection and NAFLD in the Asian and non-Asian populations. Methods: Relevant studies published from inception to July 22, 2021, in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. The odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were pooled by the random-effects model or fixed-effects model. Additionally, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The funnel plot and the Egger test were used to estimate publication bias. Results: This meta-analysis included 25 studies involving 107,306 participants. Positive associations between HP infection and NAFLD were found both for the Asian (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.13-1.49, P < 0.01; I 2 = 94.30%, P < 0.01) and non-Asian populations (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.04-1.94, P = 0.03; I 2 = 44.90%, P = 0.09). Moreover, similar results were observed in the Asian female group (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.17-1.46, P < 0.01; I 2 = 46.30%, P = 0.07) but not for the Asian male group. Subgroup analyses for the Asian population showed that there were differences in the association among NAFLD diagnosis methods (P < 0.01) and the study design (P < 0.01). However, subgroup and sensitivity analyses results showed that the association for the non-Asian population was not stable enough. Conclusions: The data obtained in this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that an HP infection was associated with an increased risk of NAFLD for Asian and non-Asian populations. However, the association was not found for Asian males. Further studies are required to establish the causal association, especially for the non-Asian population. Systematic review registration: Identifier: CRD42021266871.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Improving WHO's understanding of WHO guideline uptake and use in Member States: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: WHO publishes public health and clinical guidelines to guide Member States in achieving better health outcomes. Furthermore, WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work for 2019-2023 prioritizes strengthening its normative functional role and uptake of normative and standard-setting products, including guidelines at the country level. Therefore, understanding WHO guideline uptake by the Member States, particularly the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is of utmost importance for the organization and scholarship. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using a comprehensive search strategy to include published literature in English between 2007 and 2020. The review was conducted between May and June 2021. We searched five electronic databases including CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus. We also searched Google Scholar as a supplementary source. The review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews) guidelines for reporting the searches, screening and identification of evaluation studies from the literature. A narrative synthesis of the evidence around key barriers and challenges for WHO guideline uptake in LMICs is thematically presented. RESULTS: The scoping review included 48 studies, and the findings were categorized into four themes: (1) lack of national legislation, regulations and policy coherence, (2) inadequate experience, expertise and training of healthcare providers for guideline uptake, (3) funding limitations for guideline uptake and use, and (4) inadequate healthcare infrastructure for guideline compliance. These challenges were situated in the Member States' health systems. The findings suggest that governance was often weak within the existing health systems amongst most of the LMICs studied, as was the guidance provided by WHO's guidelines on governance requirements. This challenge was further exacerbated by a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms for uptake and implementation of guidelines. In addition, the WHO guidelines themselves were either unclear and were technically challenging for some health conditions; however, WHO guidelines were primarily used as a reference by Member States when they developed their national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges identified reflect the national health systems' (in)ability to allocate, implement and monitor the guidelines. Historically this is beyond the remit of WHO, but Member States could benefit from WHO implementation guidance on requirements and needs for successful uptake and use of WHO guidelines.

The reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols still needs improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of single-patient (N-of-1) trials and protocols based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement and the standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT) extension and elaboration for N-of-1 trials (SPENT) checklist to examine the factors that influenced reporting quality. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched to identify N-of-1 trials and protocols from 2015 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two reviewers. We calculated the overall scores based on binary responses in which "Yes" was scored as 1 (if the item was fully reported), and "No" was scored as 0 (if the item was not clearly reported or not definitely stated). RESULTS: A total of 78 publications (55 N-of-1 trials and 23 protocols) were identified. The mean reporting score (SD) of the N-of-1 trials and protocols were 29.24 (0.89) and 29.61 (1.83), respectively. For the items related to outcomes, sample size, allocation concealment protocol, and informed consent materials, the reporting quality was low. Our results showed that the year of publication (t = -0.793, p = 0.872 for the trials and t = 1.352, p = 0.623 for the protocols) and the impact factor of the journal (t = 1.416, p = 0.619 for the trials and t = 0.359, p = 0.667 for the protocols) were not factors associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSION: With the publication of the CENT 2015 statement and the SPENT 2019 checklist, authors should adhere to the relevant reporting guidelines and improve the reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols.

Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus in overweight or obese pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risks of complications during pregnancy and delivery. The efficacy of probiotics for preventing atopic disease among overweight and obese pregnant women has not been a unified conclusion. Therefore, we aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of probiotics supplementation for overweight and obese pregnant women. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials from the earliest publication date available to September 23, 2020, regardless of language or publication status. Two reviewers independently extracted data with a standardized form. When disagreements arose, a third investigator was consulted. Data was pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences and relative risk with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was measured and quantified by I2 statistic. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between probiotics and placebo on GDM (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.30; P = 0.821; I2 = 38.7%, P = 0.180), excess gestational weight gain (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.06; P = 0.223; I2 = 91.2%, P = 0.001) and neonatal birth weight (WMD = 28.47; 95% CI, -34.80-91.73; P = 0.383; I2 = 4.5%, P = 0.381). In addition, probiotics might increase the risk of preeclampsia including superimposed (RR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = 0.001; I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.994). CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics had no better efficacy for prevention of atopic disease in overweight or obese pregnant women. In contrast, excessive probiotics supplementation might increase the risk of preeclampsia. More data will be necessary to determine the prevention efficacy of probiotics with consideration of real-world and other epidemiological settings.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Overall and Top 100 Most-Cited Studies About Robotic Surgery Versus Open Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the last 30 years, significant progress in the field of surgery has been achieved with the advent of robotic surgery. In this study, we aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the distribution and characteristics overall and of the top 100 most-cited studies about robotic surgery versus open surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on March 26, 2021 using Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers independently screened documents, and the top 100 most-cited studies were identified. Excel 2019 and VOSviewer were used to collect the data, and visual information was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 2306 documents were searched from the Web of Science Core Collection, and 1065 journals and 2913 institutes were extracted. A significant growth was observed in the last 15 years. The number of citations from the United States accounted for 33.31% of the total number of citations. There were nine American institutes and one Swedish institute in the top 10 institutes. Four journals in the field of urology or gynecology were present in the top 10 published journals. Few global communications between authors, institutes, and countries authors were observed. CONCLUSION: The lack of close cooperation among scientific research institutions may have affected the industrialization process of surgical robots. Some developing countries, including South America and Africa, should seize the development opportunity of robotic surgery to improve the level of domestic research on robotic surgery.

Top 100 most-cited original articles, systematic reviews/meta-analyses in robotic surgery: A scientometric study.

The aim of this study was to explore and analyze the main features of the top 100 most-cited original articles, systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of robotic surgery, through scientometric analysis. VOSviewer and Excel 2019 were employed to conduct this scientometric study. We found that the majority of original articles (72/100) were published during the 2000s, while the majority of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs (91/100) during the 2010s. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 78), Henry Ford Health System was the most productive institution (n = 10), and Menon M was the largest contributing first author (n = 5) of the top 100 most-cited original articles. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 33), University of Padua was the most productive institution (n = 9), and Ficarra V was the largest contributing first author (n = 4) of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs. The top 100 most-cited original articles in robotic surgery have focused on the feasibility, outcomes and learning curve of robotic surgery for various neoplasms and cancers. The top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs have focused on the differences between robotic surgery and other types of surgery, with respect to the learning curve, costs, outcomes and experience in treating neoplasms, cancer and other diseases. In the future, the formation of cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary cooperation teams should be promoted and corresponding regulations and standards for specific diseases should be developed to regulate and promote the development of robotic surgery.

The Impact of Drug Trials With Financial Conflict of Interests on the Meta-analyses: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of trials with potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) on evidence synthesis in meta-analyses (MAs). METHODS: A total of 96 MAs from the Cochrane Library about drug trials were investigated. The primary outcomes examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of trials with potential FCOIs. If the proportion of changed conclusions was below the non-inferiority margin of 10%, we considered that it was not inferior to include the trials with potential FCOIs in the MAs. RESULTS: Only 54.17% of MAs reported the funding sources of each included trial, and in 21.88% of MAs, the author-industry-related financial ties of each included trial were reported. When trials with FCOIs were excluded, the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 13.16% and 11.11%, respectively, and the I2 decreased by 13.56% and 10.09%, respectively. For serious adverse events, the exclusion of FCOIs trials did not lead to any change in conclusions; however, the I2 decreased by 24.24%. The impact of trials without reported FCOIs was also examined on evidence synthesis, and the results showed that the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 5.26% and 6.25%, respectively, indicating non-inferiority. However, the I2 increased by 13.60% and 12.37%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this meta-epidemiological study, we demonstrated that trials with FCOIs may not only influence the final outcome of MAs but may also increase the heterogeneity of results. It is suggested that all MAs fully report the FCOIs involved in evidence-based research and explore the impact of its FCOIs to better provide a more valuable reference for patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

The efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine vs artemisinin-based drugs for malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was a promising alternative to IPT with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPT-SP). METHODS: We searched the following sources up to 12 August 2020: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Database from inception. The randomized controlled trials comparing SP with ACTs for malaria were included. Data were pooled using Stata.14 software. We performed subgroup analysis based on the different types of ACTs groups and participants. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies comprising 5180 people were included. The meta-analysis showed that ACTs had the lower risk of number of any parasitemia (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, p=0.039; I2=90.50%, p<0.001), early treatment failure (RR=0.17; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48, p<0.001; I2=66.60%, p=0.011) and late treatment failure (RR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92, p<0.001; I2=87.80%, p<0.001) compared with SP. There was no significant difference in adequate clinical response, average hemoglobin and adverse neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPT-SP.

The recurrence rate of Helicobacter pylori in recent 10 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To update and evaluate the recurrence rate of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy in recent 10 years. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of science was performed to identify the studies of recurrence rate of H. pylori published from 2010 to 2019. Stata 15.0 was used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies (16,797 participants) were analyzed. The recurrence rate of H. pylori was 9% (95% CI, 8-11%), and it showed an upward trend with the time elapsed after eradication. The annual recurrence rate was 4%, and there was a stable trend with the time elapsed after eradication. Subgroup analyses showed that the recurrence rate of H. pylori eradication by triple therapy was higher than that of quadruple therapy (14% [95% CI, 9-19] vs 12% [95% CI, 7-17]); urban was higher than that of rural (8% [95% CI, 1-14] vs 5% [95% CI, 1-9]); males were higher than that of females (11% [95% CI, 8-14] vs 10% [95% CI, 7-14]); Europe had the highest recurrence rate (16% [95% CI, -1 to 42]), and Africa had the lowest (1% [95% CI, 0-2]). The recurrence rate ofH. pylori was inversely related to the human development index. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate of H. pylori showed an increasing trend in recent 10 years, and it is still a knotty public health problem worldwide. The recurrence rate of H. pylori showed an upward trend with the time elapsed after eradication, and the recurrence rate of H. pylori varies by area, gender, and eradication methods.

A scientometric study of the top 100 most-cited publications based on Web-of-Science regarding robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery includes traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Although many studies related to robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery have been published, when doing our search, scientometric studies that focus on related robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery were limited. In this study, we aimed to analyze and review the research hots and research status of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery. We searched publications that involved robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in the Web of Science database from 1980 to May 23, 2020. The top 100 publications were published in 2012 with the number of 17 and citations ranged from 618 to 64. Published across 34 different journals, namely European urology (n = 17) and others, the greatest contribution among 36 institutes was made by the Cleveland Clinic (n = 11). Of the top 100 publications, a total of 429 unique words were identified and the most frequently occurring keyword was laparoscopy (n = 33). The co-occurrence of keywords in the top 100 publications indicated that the study of diseases mainly focused on prostatectomy, complications, prostate cancer, retropubic prostatectomy, nephron-sparing surgery, lymph-node dissection, total mesenteric excision, sexual function, rectal cancer, and assisted distal gastrectomy. In recent years, comparative research on robot and laparoscopic surgery has decreased and most studies focus on cancer.