BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic values of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in infectious diseases (IDs).AimThis umbrella analysis aimed to assess the potential risk of bias in existing SRs and to summarize the published diagnostic values of NGS in different IDs.MethodWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023 for SRs assessing the diagnostic validity of NGS for IDs. Two investigators independently determined review eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated reporting quality, risk of bias, methodological quality, and evidence certainty in the included SRs.ResultsEleven SRs were analyzed. Most SRs exhibited a moderate level of reporting quality, while a serious risk of bias was observed in all SRs. The diagnostic performance of NGS in detecting pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection was notably robust, showing excellent sensitivity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, very low certainty) and specificity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, very low certainty). NGS exhibited high specificity for central nervous system infection, bacterial meningoencephalitis, and tuberculous meningitis. The sensitivity to these infectious diseases was moderate. NGS demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for multiple infections and pulmonary infections.ConclusionThis umbrella analysis indicates that NGS is a promising technique for diagnosing pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection with excellent sensitivity and specificity. More high-quality original research and SRs are needed to verify the current findings.

Background: The potential association between hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and development of osteoporosis has drawn significant attention from clinicians and researchers in recent years due to the increasing prevalence of HBV infection. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to show whether HBV infection is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis. Methods: Case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies that report the incidence of osteoporosis, osteoporotic fracture, osteopenia, and bone mineral density level in populations with HBV infection will be selected. Four databases from their inception to October 2019 will be searched. All data were assessed and extracted by 2 authors independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality checklist will be used to assess the quality of the selected studies. Stata 15.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX) will be used to conduct meta-analysis. Result: The results of this systemic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a recognized journal for publication. Conclusion: This systemic review and meta-analysis will determine whether HBV infection is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis. We hope this review can provide a reliable evidence. Registration: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020140522).

Background: Acupoint injection has currently received increasing attention as a treatment for primary osteoporosis (POP), This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection as a clinical treatment for POP. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupoint injection compared with conventional non-acupoint injection for POP were identified in searches of seven databases from their inception to March 2019. All data were assessed and extracted by two authors independently. The risk of bias assessment recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection. Results: Five trials with 337 patients (aged 45–86 years) with bone mineral density (BMD) ≤2 SD were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with conventional intramuscular injection, acupoint injection significantly increased the BMD [mean difference (MD) =0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P0.05). Individuals results showed that acupoint injection improved biochemical indicators, such as NBAP, IGF-I and reduced CTX and leptin levels. While the risk of bias was high in all five trials. Conclusions: This meta-analysis and systematic review suggests that acupoint injection improves BMD and some biochemical indicators in POP patients compared with the effects of conventional intramuscular injection. However, due to the high risk of bias in all the trials reviewed, the evidence remains inconclusive and future research will be required with improved methodological quality.