Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Background and ObjectiveConsidering that physicians and patients widely use acupuncture, it is necessary to explore its adverse effects during treatment. Herein, an evidence map was generated based on published studies to identify acupuncture-induced adverse effects and assess their severity, with the overarching goal of providing references for safe and effective implementation.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in four public databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and the Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies published up to 15(th) June 2022. In addition, relevant studies were explored in the Epistemonikos database and reference lists were retrieved as a supplement. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, Version 2 (AMSTAR-2) quality assessment tool was applied to determine the methodological quality of included systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analysis (MAs), whereas Microsoft Excel 2019 tool was used for data extraction and coding. Heatmaps were generated to display disease type, countries of origin for the first authors, and the sample sizes of original studies. Moreover, bubble charts comprehensively presented intervention categories, adverse reaction types, and evidence levels.ResultsA total of 535 SRs involving 33 adverse reactions were included. Among them, 22 studies were rated as high quality, 28 as moderate, 106 as low, and the rest were of critically-low quality. Numerous adverse effects were described in the studies, including syncope (86 SRs), organ or tissue injury (233 SRs), systemic reactions (113 SRs), infection (19 SRs), and other adverse events (373 SRs). Importantly, these adverse reactions were mainly associated with 19 acupuncture techniques, including electroacupuncture (n = 67), manual acupuncture (n = 47) and acupoint catgut embedding (n = 41). Furthermore, the 535 SRs described 23 diseases, among which symptoms, signs or clinical findings (83 SRs), mental, behavioral or neurodevelopmental disorders (67 SRs), and diseases of the nervous system (66 SRs) had the highest incidence.ConclusionThis evidence mapping explores the adverse effects of acupuncture, showing that there are multiple types of adverse reactions to acupuncture, with milder symptoms. The methodological assessment revealed that most of the included studies were of low- or critically low-quality. Therefore, there is a need for future randomized controlled trials and SRs to comprehensively analyze acupuncture-related adverse events in order to provide reliable and credible evidence.

Background: The potential effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) against "epidemic diseases " has highlighted the knowledge gaps associated with TCM in COVID-19 management. This study aimed to map the matrix for rigorously assessing, organizing, and presenting evidence relevant to TCM in COVID-19 management.Methods: In this study, we used the methodology of evidence mapping (EM). Nine electronic databases, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, , gray literature, reference lists of articles, and relevant Chinese conference proceedings, were searched for articles published until 23 March 2022. The EndNote X9, Rayyan, EPPI, and R software were used for data entry and management.Results: In all, 126 studies, including 76 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 50 systematic reviews (SRs), met our inclusion criteria. Of these, only nine studies (7.14%) were designated as high quality: four RCTs were assessed as "low risk of bias " and five SRs as "high quality. " Based on the research objectives of these studies, the included studies were classified into treatment (53 RCTs and 50 SRs, 81.75%), rehabilitation (20 RCTs, 15.87%), and prevention (3 RCTs, 2.38%) groups. A total of 76 RCTs included 59 intervention categories and 57 efficacy outcomes. All relevant trials consistently demonstrated that TCM significantly improved 22 outcomes (i.e., consistent positive outcomes) without significantly affecting four (i.e., consistent negative outcomes). Further, 50 SRs included nine intervention categories and 27 efficacy outcomes, two of which reported consistent positive outcomes and two reported consistent negative outcomes. Moreover, 45 RCTs and 38 SRs investigated adverse events; 39 RCTs and 30 SRs showed no serious adverse events or significant differences between groups.Conclusion: This study provides evidence matrix mapping of TCM against COVID-19, demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients, and also addresses evidence gaps. Given the limited number and poor quality of available studies and potential concerns regarding the applicability of the current clinical evaluation standards to TCM, the effect of specific interventions on individual outcomes needs further evaluation.

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019, the controversy over the effectiveness, safety, and enforceability of masks used by the public has been prominent. This study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available high-quality design evidence concerning mask use during the spread of respiratory viruses and find evidence gaps. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinical trial registry, gray literature database, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in April 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. A bubble plot was designed to display information in four dimensions. Finally, twenty-one RCTs and nine SRs met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were of "Low quality" and focused on healthcare workers. Six RCTs reported adverse effects, with one implying that the cloth masks reuse may increase the infection risk. When comparing masks with usual practice, over 70% RCTs and also SRs showed that masks were "beneficial" or "probably beneficial"; however, when comparing N95 respirators with medical masks, 75% of SRs showed "no effect", whereas 50% of RCTs showed "beneficial effect". Overall, the current evidence provided by high-quality designs may be insufficient to deal with a second impact of the pandemic. Masks may be effective in interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses; however, the effect of an N95 respirator or cloth masks versus medical masks is unclear. Additional high-quality studies determining the impact of prolonged mask use on vulnerable populations (such as children and pregnant women), the possible adverse effects (such as skin allergies and shortness of breath) and optimal settings and exposure circumstances for populations to use masks are needed.

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. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.