Background: To refine the methods of developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for integrative ChineseWestern medicine (ICWM), promoting the formation of trustworthy, implementable recommendations that integrate the strengths of Chinese and Western medicine. Methods: Using a nominal group technique (NGT) approach, a multidisciplinary expert panel was established. The panel identified key methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development through literature review and iterative discussions, and formulated methodological proposals to address these issues. The final set of proposals was achieved through consensus among the panel members. Results: The collaborative effort resulted in the identification of five pivotal methodological issues and the subsequent establishment of 22 specific recommendations. These encompass strict adherence to renowned standards, such as those proposed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Guidelines International Network (G -I -N), the employment of methodologies like the GRADE approach and RIGHT statement, the strategic constitution of a balanced development group, the adept identification of ICWM-focused clinical inquiries, the nuanced integration of diverse evidence sources, and the detailed crafting of transparent, implementable recommendations. Conclusions: This study concentrates on the most crucial and prevalent methodological issues in ICWM-CPG development, proposing a series of recommendations. These suggestions result from a multidisciplinary expert consensus, aiming to provide methodological guidance for ICWM-CPG developers, building upon the current foundational methodologies.

Objective: Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

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.

Background: Although a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews. Purpose: The present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274. Results: Nineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources. Conclusion: The available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.

In the recent years, migraine has been widely studied by scholars from all over the world. This study aimed to use scientometric methods to identify research frontiers and development trends in the field of migraine research. We used the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database to collect articles and reviews related to migraine published from 2010 to 2019 on March 25, 2020. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Excel were used for the scientometric analysis. A total of 6,357 publications (including 5,203 articles and 1,154 reviews) were identified. The United States published the most publications (n=2,151, 33.84%). Albert Einstein College of Medicine contributed the most publications ( n=220, 3.46%). Cephalalgia was found to be the core journal with the most publications (n=766, impact factor 2019 =4.868) as well as the most co-citations (n=35,535). Lipton RB authored the most publications (n=159, 2.50%), while Silberstein SD received the most co-citations (n=4,215). The critical topics were causes and pathophysiological mechanisms, epidemiological characteristics, diagnostic criteria, treatment and prevention drugs, and migraine-related genes. Through the use of scientometric methods, this article has mapped the knowledge landscape of migraine research over the past decade. By showing the overall status of the field, it provides a useful reference for future research.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. Methods: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. Results: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusions: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.

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.

EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE