Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses of acupuncture for patients with migraine: A methodological investigation with evidence map.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve migraine-related symptoms. However, the findings of previous systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are still not completely consistent. Their quality is also unknown, so a comprehensive study is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of these MAs concerning acupuncture for migraine, and summarize evidence about the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for migraine. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Databases, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases were searched from inception to September 2020, with a comprehensive search strategy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The pairwise MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning migraine treated by acupuncture or acupuncture-based therapies, with a control group that received sham acupuncture, medication, no treatment, or acupuncture at different acupoints were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent investigators screened studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed reporting and methodological quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), then all results were cross-checked. Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores. RESULTS: A total of 20 MAs were included in this study. The included MAs indicated that acupuncture was efficacious and safe in preventing and treating migraine when compared with control intervention. There was a high correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores (rs = 0.87, P < 0.001). The quality of the included SRs needs to be improved mainly with regard to protocol and prospective registration, using a comprehensive search strategy, summarizing the strength of evidence body for key outcomes, a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion, reporting of RCTs' funding sources, and assessing the potential impact of risk of bias in RCTs on MA results. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture is an effective and safe intervention for preventing and treating migraine, and could be considered as a good option for patients with migraine. However, the reporting and methodological quality of MAs included in this overview is suboptimal. In the future, AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA tools should be followed when making and reporting an SR with MA.

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.

[Influence of removable thermoplastic appliances and fixed appliances on periodontal status: a meta analysis].

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of removable thermoplastic appliances and fixed appliances on periodontal status. METHODS: Cochrane library, PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Database were searched from the date of inception to 2017.10.16，to find clinical trials about removable thermoplastic appliances and fixed appliances on periodontal status. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two reviewers independently, and meta analysis was performed using RevMan5.3. RESULTS: Totally 11 studies including 543 patients were identified. The results of meta analysis showed there were significant difference in PLI and SPD at 3 months and PLI and GI at 6 months between removable thermoplastic appliances and fixed appliances, and no significant difference was observed in GI at 3 months and SPD at 6 months between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the early orthodontic treatment, removable thermoplastic appliances has better effect than the fixed appliance on periodontal health.

How about the reporting quality of case reports in nursing field?

BACKGROUND: As a significantly important part of clinical practice, the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways. Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence, one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence. However, the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient. AIM: To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field. METHODS: Nursing science citation indexed (SCI-indexed) journals were identified from the professional website. Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017. Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as "YES", "PARTLY", or "NO" according to information reported by the included studies. The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as "high" (more than 15), "medium" (10.5 to 14.5), and "low" (less than 10). The means, standard deviations, odds ratios (OR), and the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined using Stata 12.0 software. RESULTS: Ultimately, 184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified, with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18 (mean = 13.6 ± 2.3). Of the included case reports, 10.3% were regarded low-quality, 52.7% were considered middle-quality, and 37% were regarded high-quality. There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding (14.2 ± 1.7 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4456) and journal impact factor < 1.8 versus impact factor ≥ 1.8 (13.3 ± 2.3 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4977). Five items from the CARE guidelines, 5a (Patient), 6 (Clinical findings), 8c (Diagnostic reasoning), 9 (Therapeutic intervention), and 11d (The main take-away lessons) were well-reported (Reporting rate more than 90%) in most of the included case reports. However, only three items, 2 (Keywords, OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.19-0.92, P = 0.03), 4 (Introduction, OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.83, P = 0.017), and 11b (The relevant medical literature, OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003) were considered better-reported after the CARE guidelines published in 2013. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of case reports in the nursing field apparently has not improved since the publication of the CARE guidelines.

Suprapubic tube compared with urethral catheter drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of the suprapubic drainage and urethral catheterization after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine disc were systematically researched from their inception to December 2017. We selected randomized controlled trials, cohort studies comparing suprapubic tube with urethral catheter drainage in RARP patients. A meta-analysis was performed using R software, and a random-effects model was used to pool the effect size. Ten studies met eligibility criteria (N = 1248), including 3 RCTs, 3 prospective studies and 4 retrospective studies. Suprapubic drainage was associated with a reduction in the penile pain (39.64% [44 of 111]) compared with the UC group (62% [106 of 171]) (pooled RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.02, P = 0.05). However, two groups showed similarity in the overall pain (Postoperative days 1-3: pooled MD -0.26, 95% CI 1.34 to 0.83, P = 0.64; Postoperative days 6-7: pooled MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.54 to 0.54, P = 0.34), urinary incontinence (pooled RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15, P = 0.23), bladder neck contracture (pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.53, P = 0.45), urinary retention (pooled RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.70, P = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (P = 0.15), urethral stricture (P = 0.84) and bacteriuria (P = 0.40). The present meta-analysis showed that suprapubic drainage may be associated with less penile pain, but there was no conclusive evidence that suprapubic drainage was advantaged in other outcomes. Due to the low quality and small quantity of the available comparative studies, more high-quality randomized trials are needed to provide stronger evidence of the benefits of the two routes.