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.

Research hotspots and trends of Kinesio Taping from 2011 to 2020: a bibliometric analysis.

The purpose of this study was to explore the research hotspots and trends of Kinesio Taping in the last decade and provide new sights in future studies. Publications in the area of Kinesio Taping were searched from the Web of Science Core Collection database between 2011 and 2020. Citespace software was used to analyze data on countries/regions, institutions, authors, co-cited references, and keywords. A total of 677 publications were obtained in the last decade. We identified the most prolific countries, institutions, and authors in the field of Kinesio Taping from 2011 to 2020. The annual number of publications showed an upward trend. The most prolific country and institution were Turkey and Hacettepe University, respectively. The author with the biggest number of publications was Gul Baltaci from Turkey. The top 5 most frequent keywords were "pain", "tape", "strength", "exercise", and "reliability". The keywords with the highest centrality were "proprioception", followed by "reliability", "clinical trial", "ankle", and "pain". Ten clusters were found and the biggest one was "quadricep". The top 9 keywords with the strongest bursts were detected and "trial" had the highest burst strength. The results from the bibliometric analysis provide hotspots and trends in the field of Kinesio Taping. It is still in the development stage of the past decade. Pain relief, sports injury prevention and treatment, and proprioception enhancement to improve postural control were the hotspots from 2011 to 2020. High-quality trials and standardized criteria for applications are needed in the future.

Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. RESULTS: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). CONCLUSION: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.