Background:Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. Search methods:The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results:We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence). For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

We conducted the present bibliometric analysis to explore menopausal hormone therapy (MHT)-related research trends between 2000 and 2021. The Web of Science database was systematically searched from 2000 to 2021 to retrieve MHT-related publications. Visualization mapping and keyword cluster graphs were utilized to illustrate the research topics and hotpots. We included 11,616 MHT-related publications for this bibliometric analysis. The results showed that (1) MHT-related research had a very slow increase in the past 22 years, and the trend fluctuated. Sum of times cited and average citations per item had the same trend: a sharp decline from 2002 to 2003, and a rapid increase from 2003 to 2006, reaching the peak in 2006, then following a downward trend. The average H-index was 57, peaking in 2001; (2) the USA, the League of European Research Universities, and Dr. JoAann Manson from Harvard University contributed the most; (3) Menopause: The Journal of The North American Menopause Society had the most significant number of MHT-related publications; (4) the research hotpots primarily focused on MHT for treating menopausal symptoms and the impact of MHT on women's health. According to previous studies, MHT was the most effective treatment for managing vasomotor symptoms of menopause, but results from the clinical trials and observational studies regarding MHT adverse events remain inconsistent. Mechanisms are fundamental when clinical studies give conflicting results. Therefore, future studies should focus on adverse events and their mechanisms.

Aim To compare the safety and effects of unrestricted visiting policies (UVPs) and restricted visiting policies (RVPs) in intensive care units (ICUs) with respect to outcomes related to delirium, infection, and mortality. Methods MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBMdisc, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database records generated from their inception to 22 January 2022 were searched. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. The main outcomes investigated were delirium, ICU-acquired infection, ICU mortality, and length of ICU stay. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted to obtain pooled estimates, due to heterogeneity. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The results were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standardized mean differences (SMDs). Results Eleven studies including a total of 3741 patients that compared UVPs and RVPs in ICUs were included in the analyses. Random effects modeling indicated that UVPs were associated with a reduced incidence of delirium (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.25-0.63, I-2 = 71%, p = 0.0005). Fixed-effects modeling indicated that UVPs did not increase the incidences of ICU-acquired infections, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.71-1.30, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.49), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52-1.80, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.55), and catheter-related blood stream infection (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.72-1.84, I-2 = 0%, p = 0.66), or ICU mortality (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28, I-2 = 49%, p = 0.12). Forest plotting indicated that UVPs could reduce the lengths of ICU stays (SMD = - 0.97, 95% CI - 1.61 to 0.32, p = 0.003). Conclusion The current meta-analysis indicates that adopting a UVP may significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in ICU patients, without increasing the risks of ICU-acquired infection or mortality. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these indications.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies such as disease-modifying therapies focus on treating exacerbations, preventing new exacerbations and avoiding the progression of disability. Siponimod (BAF312) is an oral treatment, a selective sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator, for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of MS including active, secondary progressive MS with relapses. Objectives: To assess the benefits and adverse effects of siponimod as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or any active comparator for people diagnosed with MS. Search methods: On 18 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Trials Register, which contains studies from CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and the trials registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also handsearched relevant journals and screened the reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to June 2020) from the MS societies in Europe and America. Selection criteria: We included randomised parallel controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated siponimod, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or any active comparator in people with MS. There were no restrictions on dose or administration frequency. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We discussed disagreements and resolved them by consensus among the review authors. Our primary outcomes wereworsening disability, relapse and adverse events, and secondary outcomes were annualised relapse rate, gadolinium-enhancing lesions, new lesions or enlarged pre-existing lesions and mean change of brain volume. We independently evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data. Main results: Two studies (1948 participants) met our selection criteria, 608 controls and 1334 treated with siponimod. The included studies compared siponimod with placebo. Overall, all studies had a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and attrition bias. Comparing siponimod administered at a dose of 2 mg to placebo, we found that siponimod may reduce the number of participants with disability progression at six months (56 fewer people per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 0.94; 1 study, 1641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and annualised relapse rate (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.56; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence). But it might lead to little reduction in the number of participants with new relapse (166 fewer people per 1000; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; 1 study, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference due to adverse events for siponimod at 2 mg compared to placebo (14 more people per 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.71; 2 studies, 1739 participants, low-certainty evidence). In addition, due to the high risk of inaccurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in the two included studies, we could not combine data for active lesions on MRI scans. Both studies had high attrition bias resulting from the unbalanced reasons for dropouts among groups and high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Siponimod may reduce the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions at two years of follow-up (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19; P < 0.0001; 1 study, 1641 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between groups in the number of participants with at least one serious adverse event excluding relapses (113 more people per 1000; RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.77; 2 studies, 1739 participants; low-certainty evidence) at six months. No data were available regarding cardiac adverse events. In terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with siponimod were headache, back pain, bradycardia, dizziness, fatigue, influenza, urinary tract infection, lymphopenia, nausea, alanine amino transferase increase and upper respiratory tract infection. These adverse events have dose-related effects and rarely led to discontinuation of treatment. Authors' conclusions: Based on the findings of the RCTs included in this review, we are uncertain whether siponimod interventions are beneficial for people with MS. There was low-certainty evidence to support that siponimod at a dose of 2 mg orally once daily as monotherapy compared with placebo may reduce the annualised relapse rate and the number of participants who experienced disability worsening, at 6 months. However, the certainty of the evidence to support the benefit in reducing the number of people with a relapse is very low. The risk of withdrawals due to adverse events requires careful monitoring of participants over time. The duration of all studies was less than 24 months, so the efficacy and safety of siponimod over 24 months are still uncertain, and further exploration is needed in the future. There is no high-certainty data available to evaluate the benefit on MRI outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for all outcomes was low to very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. We are uncertain whether siponimod is beneficial for people with MS. More new studies with robust methodology and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of siponimod for the management of MS and to observe long-term adverse effects. Also, in addition to comparing with placebo, more new studies are needed to evaluate siponimod versus other therapeutic options

Purpose: To provide an overview of existing meta-analysis (MAs) on the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for depression, and assess the methodological quality and the strength of evidence of the included MAs. Methods: We searched MAs of randomized trials that have evaluated the effects of acupuncture on depression in three international and three Chinese databases from their inception until August 2019. The methodological quality of included MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Results: We included 31 MAs and 59 RCTs. The results of included MAs were conflicting, our meta-analyses found that acupuncture may confer small benefit in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment than no treatment/wait list/treatment as usual(SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.41, eight trials, 624 participants), control acupuncture (invasive, non-invasive sham controls) (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.04, 20 trials, 1055 participants), antidepressants(Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)/Tetracyclic antidepressants(TCAs)) (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10, 30 trials, 3068 participants), acupuncture plus antidepressants versus antidepressants(SSRI/TCAs) (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.61, 17 trials, 1110 participants). Subgroup analyses showed that there was no difference between electro-acupuncture and invasive control (P = 0.37), electroacupuncture and non-invasive control (P = 0.90), manual acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.57), electro-acupuncture and Tetracyclic antidepressants (P = 0.07). Six MAs concluded that acupuncture reduced the incidence of adverse events compared with antidepressants. The evaluation with AMSTAR-2 showed that the quality of included MAs was low or critically low. The results of the GRADE evaluation showed that the strength of evidence was low to very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Although acupuncture appears to be more effective and safer than no treatment, control acupuncture and antidepressants, the quality of the available evidence was very low. Further methodologically rigorous and adequately powered primary studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of acupuncture for depression.

Objectives Acupuncture is an alternative therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD), but its efficacy and safety are controversial. This overview aimed to summarize the existing evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) in order to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for PD. Methods Seven electronic databases were searched from their inception until July 2019. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess evidence quality and methodological quality, respectively. The outcomes of study were calculated using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 12 SRs/MAs were included. All 12 SRs/MAs had more than one critical weakness in AMSTAR 2 and were considered of critically low methodological quality. The quality of evidence was unsatisfactory according to the GRADE checklist. Meta-analyses showed that acupuncture combined with drug for the treatment of PD can significantly improve the total effectiveness rate compared with drug alone (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16–1.34, P < 0.001). It was also found that acupuncture combined with drug significantly improved the UPDRS I–IV total summed scores (WMD=−6.18, 95 % CI -10.32 to –2.04, P < 0.001) and Webster scores (WMD=−4.20, 95 % CI -7.59 to –0.81, P < 0.001). Conclusion Acupuncture might improve the UPDRS score, Webster score, and total effective rate in treatment of PD. It might be a safe and useful adjunctive treatment for patients with PD. However, we should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality.

Purpose: To evaluate the methodological quality and summarize evidence of important outcomes of systematic reviews (SRs)/Meta analyses (MM) of acupuncture for anxiety. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) until November 30, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of evidence. In the pre-experiment, we used the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess reviewer agreement, the ICC value for overall score was 0.978. Results: Ten reviews were included. The assessment results of AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included studies was critically low. The lowest score were item "provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions" and item "report sources of funding for the included studies", none of studies provided information about the above two items, followed by the "providing a priori design" item with only two (20%) studies conforming to this item. For GRADE, of the 7 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 1 (14.3%), moderate in 2 (28.6.7%), and low in 4 (57.1%). Conclusion: Although most of the included reviews indicated that acupuncture group was more effective than control group in the treatment of anxiety, more importantly, the methodological quality of the included reviews and the quality of evidence were low. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.

Authors' objectives: Acute kidney injury is a serious complication that occurs in the context of an acute critical illness or during a postoperative period. Earlier detection of acute kidney injury may facilitate strategies to preserve renal function, prevent further disease progression and reduce mortality. Acute kidney injury diagnosis relies on a rise in serum creatinine levels and/or fall in urine output; however, creatinine is an imperfect marker of kidney function. There is interest in the performance of novel biomarkers used in conjunction with existing clinical assessment, such as NephroCheck® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), ARCHITECT® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), and urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) immunoassays. If reliable, these biomarkers may enable earlier identification of acute kidney injury and enhance management of those with a modifiable disease course. The objective was to evaluate the role of biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury in critically ill patients who are considered for admission to critical care.

Authors' objectives: Convulsive status epilepticus is defined as ≥ 5 minutes of either continuous seizure activity or repetitive seizures without regaining consciousness. It is regarded as an emergency condition that requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Rapid pre-hospital first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus is currently benzodiazepines, administered either by trained caregivers in the community (e.g. buccal midazolam, rectal diazepam) or by trained health professionals via intramuscular or intravenous routes (e.g. midazolam, lorazepam). There is a lack of clarity about the optimal treatment for convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. To assess the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults with convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting.