Objective: Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

BACKGROUND Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the association between ultra -processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of hypertension in various populations. However, the quality of the evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review was thus conducted to fill this gap. METHODS We searched for SRs with and without meta -analyses comparing high UPF versus low UPF consumption on the risk of hypertension in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to August 2022. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022352934). The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR -2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta -analysis 2009 (PRISMA 2009) statement were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs. Stata 15/SE was used to reanalyse the data using the random -effects model, and the risk of bias of observational studies from included SRs was reassessed using the Newcastle -Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. The certainty of the evidence body was assessed using the GRADE recommendation. RESULTS Seven SRs were included in the umbrella review. Among them, nine observational studies (5 cross-sectional and 4 cohort studies), whose available data were resynthesised using meta -analysis. The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were relatively poor. The meta -analysis results revealed suggestive evidence of an association between high UPF consumption and the incidence of hypertension (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% con fidence interval: 1.11 to 1.37, p < 0.001, 95% prediction interval: 0.92 to 1.64, critically low certainty) compared to low UPF consumption. CONCLUSION High UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, well-conducted SRs, including high -quality prospective cohort studies, are needed to further verify these findings.

Consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is associated with various adverse health outcomes, which significantly influence the global disease burden. This umbrella review aimed to fill the knowledge gap and guide public health practices by summarizing the association between UPFs and multiple health outcomes. A total of four databases were systematically searched from inception to December 2022, and 14 eligible systematic re-views (SRs) with meta-analyses (MAs) were identified. The SRs were published in 10 journals from 2020 to 2023, with 54,147-5,750,133 participants and 5-61 studies. The overall corrected covered area (CCA) was corresponded to a slight overlap. The results showed that an increased UPFs consumption is associated with multiple health outcomes (e.g., obesity, diabetes, hypertension, mortality). Only two SRs were "Moderate" regarding the overall methodological quality, while the other twelve were "Low" or "Critically low". Therefore, well-conducted SRs with high-quality prospective cohorts with a particular focus on special populations are needed to verify these findings further.

Background: Several quantitative systematic reviews of Kanglaite (KLT), an herb preparation used to treat cancer and malignant pleural effusion, have been published in recent years. However, the clinical evidence reported in these studies has not been pursued further and the methodological quality of these meta-analyses remains unknown. Therefore, an overview was designed to map the evidence landscape based on the published meta-analyses on KLT in cancer treatment. Methods: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception to 25 November 2021. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR 2. The principal features of publications and the clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety were synthesized narratively, and results of methodological quality were reported as frequencies and percentages with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The evidence map was used to visualize the overall quality. Excel 2016 and Stata 17/SE were used for data analysis. Results: Thirteen meta-analyses published in English were included for in-depth analysis. Among them, the year of publication ranged from 2008 to 2021, and the number of included patients ranged from 488 to 2,964. Regarding the cancer type, seven articles focused on non-small cell lung cancer, two on malignant pleural effusion, and four reviews on digestive system malignancies, such as hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer. Almost all included meta-analyses reported that KLT as adjunctive therapy could improve various efficacy outcomes (such as disease response rates, quality of life, immune indicators) and reduce the rate of occurrence of adverse reactions, such as nausea and vomiting, leukopenia, and anemia. In terms of their methodological quality, three meta-analyses were of low quality, whereas 10 studies were critically low in quality. The methodological flaws main involved items 2 ( "predesigned protocol and registration informatio''), 3 ( "rationale of study design for inclusion "), 4 ( "comprehensive search strategy''), 5 ( "literature selection in duplicate''), 7 ( "list of excluded studies with reasons''), 8 ( "adequate information on included studies''), 10 ( "funding support for included primary studies''), and 12 ( "evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias'') based on the AMSTAR 2 tool. Conclusion: Current evidence reveals that KLT is effective and safe as an adjunctive treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural effusion, and digestive system malignancies (such as hepatocellular carcinoma). However, the results assessed in this overview should be further verified using well-designed and clearly reported clinical trials and meta-analyses of KLT.

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.

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs. Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005). Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

Background: Although a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews. Purpose: The present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274. Results: Nineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources. Conclusion: The available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.

In the recent years, migraine has been widely studied by scholars from all over the world. This study aimed to use scientometric methods to identify research frontiers and development trends in the field of migraine research. We used the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database to collect articles and reviews related to migraine published from 2010 to 2019 on March 25, 2020. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Excel were used for the scientometric analysis. A total of 6,357 publications (including 5,203 articles and 1,154 reviews) were identified. The United States published the most publications (n=2,151, 33.84%). Albert Einstein College of Medicine contributed the most publications ( n=220, 3.46%). Cephalalgia was found to be the core journal with the most publications (n=766, impact factor 2019 =4.868) as well as the most co-citations (n=35,535). Lipton RB authored the most publications (n=159, 2.50%), while Silberstein SD received the most co-citations (n=4,215). The critical topics were causes and pathophysiological mechanisms, epidemiological characteristics, diagnostic criteria, treatment and prevention drugs, and migraine-related genes. Through the use of scientometric methods, this article has mapped the knowledge landscape of migraine research over the past decade. By showing the overall status of the field, it provides a useful reference for future research.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. Methods: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. Results: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusions: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.

Background Several clinical trials investigated the effects of enteral lactoferrin supplementation on the prevention of sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants, but the efficacy and safety remain disputed. Therefore, we systematically evaluated the effect of enteral lactoferrin supplementation in preterm infants through a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods We searched six databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of lactoferrin supplementation compared with placebo or no intervention in preterm infants. RevMan version 5.3 software was used to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs) with the random-effects model. TSA, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression analyses were also performed. Results Nine RCTs with 3515 samples were included. With low to moderate quality of evidence, compared with placebo, enteral lactoferrin supplementation did not significantly decrease the incidences of late-onset sepsis (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.02,P= 0.06), NEC stage II or III (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.52,P= 0.35), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.57,P= 0.69), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.13,P= 0.92), retinopathy of prematurity (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.32,P= 0.38), invasive fungal infection (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.02 to 3.94,P= 0.34), intraventricular hemorrhage (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.39 to 5.08,P= 0.61), and urinary tract infection (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.11 to 1.06,P= 0.06). Subgroup analysis revealed that lactoferrin significantly reduced the incidence of sepsis in infants with a birth weight below 1500 g (RR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.84,P= 0.01). TSAs of the primary outcomes showed that the evidence is insufficient and further data is required. Conclusions Limited evidence suggested that enteral lactoferrin supplementation was associated with a reduction of late-onset sepsis in infants with a birth weight below 1500g, however, did not decrease the incidence of NEC stage II or III, all-cause mortality, and other adverse events in preterm infants. The present evidence was insufficient to inform clinical practice.