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.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018. Study design and setting: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. Results: We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding. Conclusion: Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.