Postoperative gastrointestinal disorder (POGD) was a common complication after surgery under anesthesia. Strategies in combination with Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western medicine showed some distinct effects but standardized clinical practice guidelines were not available. Thus, a multidisciplinary expert team from various professional bodies including the Perioperative and Anesthesia Professional Committees of the Chinese Association of Integrative Medicine (CAIM), jointly with Gansu Province Clinical Research Center of Integrative Anesthesiology/Anesthesia and Pain Medical Center of Gansu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine and WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation/Chinese Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Center/Gansu Provincial Center for Medical Guideline Industry Technology/Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, was established to develop evidence-based guidelines. Clinical questions (7 background and 12 clinical questions) were identified through literature reviews and expert consensus meetings. Based on systematic reviews/meta-analyses, evidence quality was analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of interventional measures were weighed with input from patients' preferences. Finally, 20 recommendations were developed through the Delphi-based consensus meetings. These recommendations included disease definitions, etiologies, pathogenesis, syndrome differentiation, diagnosis, and perioperative prevention and treatment.

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: Multiple studies and meta-analyses have reported the diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) in several diseases. However, the precision, and influence of potential bias regarding the diagnostic values of existing evidence may have implications for clinical practice. Methods: We performed an umbrella review of diagnostic test accuracy studies of CRP for diseases by searching PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang databases up to March 7, 2021. Five independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. We descriptively analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases, heterogeneity between studies, and publication bias. Results: Seventy-four meta-analyses were included, with 13 diseases classified according to the International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11). The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was mostly low, with only 16 meta-analyses rated as moderate or high, including seven diseases classified by ICD-11. CRP had a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for two of these diseases. For postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.81 (0.34-1) and 0.91 (0.73-1), respectively. For anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery, sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (0.75-0.99) and 0.95 (0.75-0.99), respectively. Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of CRP for multiple diseases has been extensively studied; however, most studies have low methodological quality. Evidence indicates that CRP has a relatively greater diagnostic accuracy for inflammation and infection diseases, especially for postoperative infectious complications after bariatric surgery and anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery.

Objective To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence. Methods Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest. Results Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as “favored,” 32% categorized as “reject,” and the remaining 5% ranked as “unclear.” Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Conclusions Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

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.

The aim of this study was to explore and analyze the main features of the top 100 most-cited original articles, systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of robotic surgery, through scientometric analysis. VOSviewer and Excel 2019 were employed to conduct this scientometric study. We found that the majority of original articles (72/100) were published during the 2000s, while the majority of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs (91/100) during the 2010s. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 78), Henry Ford Health System was the most productive institution (n = 10), and Menon M was the largest contributing first author (n = 5) of the top 100 most-cited original articles. The USA was the most dominant country (n = 33), University of Padua was the most productive institution (n = 9), and Ficarra V was the largest contributing first author (n = 4) of the top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs. The top 100 most cited original articles in robotic surgery have focused on the feasibility, outcomes and learning curve of robotic surgery for various neoplasms and cancers. The top 100 most-cited SRs/MAs have focused on the differences between robotic surgery and other types of surgery, with respect to the learning curve, costs, outcomes and experience in treating neoplasms, cancer and other diseases. In the future, the formation of cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary cooperation teams should be promoted and corresponding regulations and standards for specific diseases should be developed to regulate and promote the development of robotic surgery. (c) 2021 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Minimally invasive surgery includes traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Although many studies related to robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery have been published, when doing our search, scientometric studies that focus on related robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery were limited. In this study, we aimed to analyze and review the research hots and research status of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery. We searched publications that involved robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in the Web of Science database from 1980 to May 23, 2020. The top 100 publications were published in 2012 with the number of 17 and citations ranged from 618 to 64. Published across 34 different journals, namely European urology (n = 17) and others, the greatest contribution among 36 institutes was made by the Cleveland Clinic (n = 11). Of the top 100 publications, a total of 429 unique words were identified and the most frequently occurring keyword was laparoscopy (n = 33). The co-occurrence of keywords in the top 100 publications indicated that the study of diseases mainly focused on prostatectomy, complications, prostate cancer, retropubic prostatectomy, nephron-sparing surgery, lymph-node dissection, total mesenteric excision, sexual function, rectal cancer, and assisted distal gastrectomy. In recent years, comparative research on robot and laparoscopic surgery has decreased and most studies focus on cancer. (C) 2020 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL. Methods and analysis: We will search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MDL and PEDL for treating LSS from inception to December 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and China Biology Medicine. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2.0. Subsequently, a meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Ethics and dissemination: Given the nature of this study, no ethical approval will be required. The protocol will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal. Prospero registration number: CRD42020164765.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) are widely used in resolving questions in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine, public health and surgery), and they are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. However, the reliability of SRs is typically influenced by their methodological quality. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and AMSTAR-2 tools can assess the methodological quality of SRs, and the use of AMSTAR has been investigated. However, AMSTAR-2 is now widely used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, but the use of AMSTAR-2 for determining the methodological quality of SRs has not yet been investigated and assessed thoroughly. Thus, we designed the present study to investigate the use of AMSTAR-2 in studies that assessed the methodological quality of a sample of SRs with the AMSTAR-2 and provide references to potential users of AMSTAR-2 tool. Methods: Four commonly used electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched following a comprehensive search strategy to identify and retrieve studies that have used AMSTAR-2 tool for evaluating the methodological quality of SRs. Two independent authors will retrieve bibliometric information and methodological data, including all author names, time of publication, and journal names, whether a specific score value was given for each item, and whether overall quality assessment was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used to present the study results, e.g., frequencies and percentages, mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). In addition, subgroup analyses will be performed to identify the methodological differences (e.g., the reporting of study designs included in SRs) between overviews and methodological studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) will be calculated to measure the methodological differences. Cytoscape 3.7.1 software tool will be used to construct collaboration network maps. Further, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and Stata 12.0 will be used to manage and analyze data. Discussion: The results of this study will identify any gaps in the use of AMSTAR-2 and important bibliometric features, such as active researchers and journals, provide guidance to researchers in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine and public health) for using AMSTAR-2 tool and help them in developing cooperation and submitting their manuscripts.

Background: To systematically analyze the global development trends and research focuses of shared decision-making (SDM) studies as a reference for researchers. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection on April 17, 2019, to retrieve studies related to SDM published from 2009 to 2018. VOSviewer (1.6.10), CiteSpace (5.4.R1) and Excel 2016 were used to analyze key features of SDM studies, including annual output, countries/regions, organizations, journals, authors, references, research hot-spots, and frontiers. Results: Up to April 17, 2019, a total of 6,629 studies on SDM were identified as published between 2009 and 2018. The United States participated in the most studies (n = 3,118), with the University of California-San Francisco ranking first (n = 183). Patient Education and Counseling [impact factor (IF) 2017 = 2.785] published the most studies (n = 257). Legare F participated in the most studies (n = 101), and the paper "Charles C, 1997, Soc Sci Med, V44, P681" occupied the highest co-citation (n = 657) position. The research hotspots and frontiers included "Informed consent," "Surgery," "Depression," "Older adult," and "Patient-centered care." Conclusion: The number of studies concerning SDM has continued to increase since 2009, with the United States leading the field. The landscape of the basis of SDM included mainly concept, practice framework and effect assessment of SDM. "Informed consent," "Surgery," "Depression," "Older adult," and "Patient-centered care" reflected the latest research focuses, and should receive more attention.