This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.

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 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.

EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE