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

Study Objective:The role of transversus thoracic muscle plane blocks (TTMPBs) during cardiac surgery is controversial. We conducted a systematic review to establish the effectiveness of this procedure. Design:Systematic review. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, WanFang Data, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure to June 2022, and followed the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Study Eligibility Criteria:Eligible studies enrolled adult patients scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery and randomized them to receive a TTMPB or no block/sham block. Main Results:Nine trials that enrolled 454 participants were included. Compared to no block/sham block, moderate certainty evidence found that TTMPB probably reduces postoperative pain at rest at 12 h [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.51 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale for pain, 95% CI -2.02 to -1.00; risk difference (RD) for achieving mild pain or less (& LE;3 cm), 41%, 95% CI 17-65) and 24 h (WMD -1.07 cm, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.32; RD 26%, 95% CI 9-37). Moderate certainty evidence also supported that TTMPB probably reduces pain during movement at 12 h (WMD -3.42 cm, 95% CI -4.47 to -2.37; RD 46%, 95% CI 12-80) and at 24 h (WMD -1.73 cm, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.21; RD 32%, 95% CI 5-59), intraoperative opioid use [WMD -28 milligram morphine equivalent (MME), 95% CI -42 to -15], postoperative opioid consumption (WMD -17 MME, 95% CI -29 to -5), postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk difference 255 less per 1000 persons, 95% CI 140-314), and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (WMD -13 h, 95% CI -21 to -6). Conclusion:Moderate certainty evidence showed TTMPB during cardiac surgery probably reduces postoperative pain at rest and with movement, opioid consumption, ICU length of stay, and the incidence of nausea and vomiting.

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.

Objectives: To examine the characteristics, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social science journals in China. Study Design and Setting: The Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis published between January 2000 and December 2019. We randomly selected 200 articles from the 401 identified in our search. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklists were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Results: The 200 articles we selected covered a wide range of research fields in 9 disciplines, most of which belonged to management, education and psychology. The mean AMSTAR score and PRISMA score was 8.99 +/- 3.36 points and 14.74 +/- 3.96 points, respectively. These findings indicated that the quality of the systematic reviews was below the average level. Meanwhile, year of publication was related to both methodological quality (P = 0.001) and reporting quality (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Although many systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been published in top Chinese journals, the methodological and reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent task is to increase the standard of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of every discipline rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND In recent years, intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been increasingly used for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of IORT for the treatment of rectal cancer are still controversial. AIM To evaluate the value of IORT for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and conference abstracts and included randomized controlled trials and observational studies on IORT vs non-IORT for rectal cancer. Dichotomous variables were evaluated by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI was used as a summary statistic of survival outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.0 and Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS In this study, 3 randomized controlled studies and 12 observational studies were included with a total of 1460 patients, who are mainly residents of Europe, the United States, and Asia. Our results did not show significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.60-1.06; P = 0.126); 5-year disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.73-1.22; P = 0.650); abscess (OR = 1.10, 95%CI = 0.67-1.80; P = 0.713), fistulae (OR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.33-1.89; P = 0.600); wound complication (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 0.62-2.36; P = 0.575); anastomotic leakage (OR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.59-2.02; P = 0.775); and neurogenic bladder dysfunction (OR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.31-1.55; P = 0.369). However, the meta-analysis of 5-year local control was significantly different (OR = 3.07, 95%CI = 1.66-5.66; P = 0.000). CONCLUSION The advantage of IORT is mainly reflected in 5-year local control, but it is not statistically significant for 5-year overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, and complications.

Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and eligibility criteria Embase, Cochrane Library for clinical trials, PubMed and Web of Science were used to search studies from inception to 19 June, 2019. Studies using both TTE and right heart catheterisation (RHC) to diagnose PH were included. Main results A total of 27 studies involving 4386 subjects were considered as eligible for analysis. TTE had a pooled sensitivity of 85%, a pooled specificity of 74%, a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 3.2, a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.20, a pooled diagnostic OR of 16 and finally an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88. The subgroup with the shortest time interval between TTE and RHC had the best diagnostic effect, with sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of 88%, 90% and 0.94, respectively. TTE had lower sensitivity (81%), specificity (61%) and AUC (0.73) in the subgroup of patients with definite lung diseases. Subgroup analysis also showed that different thresholds of TTE resulted in a different diagnostic performance in the diagnosis of PH. Conclusion TTE has a clinical value in diagnosing PH, although it cannot yet replace RHC considered as the gold standard. The accuracy of TTE may be improved by shortening the time interval between TTE and RHC and by developing an appropriate threshold. TTE may not be suitable to assess pulmonary arterial pressure in patients with pulmonary diseases.

Abstract Context Patients with advanced-stage cancer often suffer many physical and psychological symptoms. Exercise has been shown to improve quality of life (QoL), decrease cancer-related symptoms, and maintain or improve functional status in cancer survivors or patients with early stage cancer. However, the effect of exercise on these outcomes in patients with advanced-stage cancer is unclear. Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness of exercise interventions for patients with advanced-stage cancer in improving cancer-related symptoms and functional status outcomes. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from their inception to February 3, 2019, to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise and usual care for improving outcomes in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of individual RCTs using the Cochrane Handbook, Version 5.1.0. Results About 15 RCTs enrolling 1208 patients were included. Compared with usual care, exercise showed a significant improvement in QoL (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.22; 95% CI 0.06–0.38; P = 0.009), fatigue (SMD −0.25; 95% CI −0.45 to −0.04; P = 0.02), insomnia (SMD −0.36; 95% CI −0.56 to −0.17; P = 0.0002), physical function (SMD 0.22; 95% CI 0.05–0.38; P = 0.009), social function (SMD 0.18; 95% CI 0.02–0.34; P = 0.03), and dyspnea reduction (SMD −0.18; 95% CI −0.34 to −0.01; P = 0.03). Conclusion Exercise serves as an effective intervention to improve QoL and alleviate fatigue, insomnia, dyspnea, and physical and social functions for patients with advanced-stage cancer.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for seniors with depressive symptoms. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed. We conducted network meta-analysis in two ways, intervention classes (psychosocial, psychotherapy, physical activity, combined, treatment as usual) and individual intervention (11 categories). Whenever included studies used different scales, the different instruments were converted to the units of the scale most frequently used (the Geriatric Depression Scale), such that the effect size was reported as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias of RCTs included in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Bayesian NMA was conducted using R-3.4.0 software. Results: A total of 35 RCTs with 3,797 enrolled patients were included. Compared to conventional treatment, physical activity and psychotherapy resulted in significant improvements in depressive symptoms (MD: 2.25, 95%CrI: 0.99-3.56; SUCRA = 86.07%; MD: 1.75, 95% CrI: 0.90-2.64; SUCRA = 66.44%, respectively). Similar results were obtained for music (MD: 2.6; 95% CrI: 0.84-4.35;SUCRA = 80.53%), life review (MD:1.92; 95% CrI:0.71-3.14; SUCRA = 65.62%), cognitive behavioral therapy (MD: 1.27; 95% CrI: 0.23-2.38; SUCRA = 45.4%), aerobic (MD: 1.84; 95% CrI: 0.39-3.36; SUCRA = 63%) and resistance training (MD: 1.72; 95% CrI: 0.06-3.42; SUCRA = 59.24%). Network meta-regression showed that there were no statistically significant subgroup effects. Conclusions: Physical activity and psychotherapy demonstrated statistically significant superiority over conventional treatment. Music and life review therapy proved the most promising individual interventions. However, conclusions are limited by the lack of sufficient sample size and consensus regarding intervention categories and so an adequately powered study is necessary to consolidate these findings.

Background: N-of-1 trial is a desired and appropriate approach to assessing the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions. There have been an increasing number of N-of-1 trials for TCM published. However, a lack of preferred reporting guidance led in the general poor reporting quality of these trials. Due to the unique characteristics of TCM, the working group developed this CONSORT Extension for reporting N-of-1 Trials for Traditional Chinese Medicine (CENT for TCM) to assist TCM researchers in reporting N-of-1 trials for TCM. Methods: We registered CENT for TCM at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network (available at equator-network.org). The development was a comprehensive process through collection of the initial reporting items, two-round scientific Delphi consensus survey with 17 panelists, revision and formation of the final reporting checklist. Results: The checklist includes 25 items within six domains, eight items in which were extended and elaborated on the items of the CENT 2015 checklist. Explanation of the items were listed adequately considering the nature of TCM, introducing the concept of TCM syndrome differentiation and TCM interventions. Conclusions: CENT for TCM can be used to assess the completeness of the reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM. The working group expect that CENT for TCM could be a practical tool to enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of the design, implementation and reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM.