Ethnopharmacological relevance Lupus Nephritis (LN) is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, the treatment of lupus nephritis using traditional Chinese medicine remains controversial. Aim of the study To assess the efficacy and safety of Shenqi Dihuang decoction in the treatment of LN and review the clinical guidelines. Materials and methods Six databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, China Biology Medicine, the Cochrane Library, and Embase) were searched from their inception to September 10, 2022, for randomized controlled trials on the treatment of lupus nephritis using Shenqi Dihuang decoction. We conducted a meta-analysis of random effects using Review Manager 5.4 and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results A total of 15,790 citations were identified, from which 14 eligible randomized controlled trials that enrolled 1002 participants were selected for this systematic review. Low-to-moderate certainty of evidence indicated that when compared with Western medicine, Shenqi Dihuang decoction combined with Western medicine was associated with favorable effects on clinical efficacy (risk ratio (RR) = 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-1.37), vascular endothelial growth factor (mean difference (MD) = -30.90, 95% CI: -40.18 to -21.63), serum level (MD = -4.81 mu mol L-1, 95% CI: -17.14 to 7.53), complement C3 (MD = -0.14 g L-1, 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.04), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (MD = -11.87 mm h(-1), 95% CI: -22.01 to -1.73), and SLE disease activity score (MD = -3.38, 95% CI: -4.15 to -2.61), and exhibited a lower risk of infection (RR = 0.2, 95% CI: 0.05-0.90), gastrointestinal reaction (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.17-1.28), and insomnia (RR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09-0.92). Conclusions This systematic review provides a potential reference for understanding the efficacy and safety of Shenqi Dihuang decoction combined with Western medicine for treating patients with lupus nephritis. However, owing to the limited quality of the studies included in this review, lack of mycophenolate mofetil control, and high heterogeneity among the included studies, the current findings should be interpreted with caution. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of Shenqi Dihuang decoction in patients with PN still require further verification through future high-quality clinical studies.

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/).

Background: Soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has the potential to diagnose infectious diseases. Due to the lack of reliable biomarkers and the importance of timely diagnosis for sepsis treatment, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of suPAR diagnosis and prognosis for sepsis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies, which reported the value of suPAR diagnosis and/or prognosis in patients with sepsis. Results: A total of 30 studies involving 6,906 patients were included. Sensitivity and specificity of suPAR for diagnosing sepsis were 0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.86] and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.83), respectively. The area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.86). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.63-0.76), respectively, with AUC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.82). In addition, AUC for differentiating sepsis from systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84), and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.58-0.76) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.88), respectively. Conclusion: suPAR is a feasible biomarker for timely diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. Compared with effective value of procalcitonin (PCT) identified by previous meta-analysis, suPAR has similar clinical guiding value, whereas suPAR exhibits higher specificity, which can facilitate the deficiencies of PCT. suPAR also shows a diagnostic value in differentiating sepsis from SIRS. Considering the lack of biomarkers for sepsis and the similar clinical value of suPAR and PCT, suPAR should be considered as a biomarker in clinical practice for sepsis.

Background: Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis. Methods: We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov () to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.