Background Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was a promising alternative to IPT with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPT-SP). Methods We searched the following sources up to 12 August 2020: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Database from inception. The randomized controlled trials comparing SP with ACTs for malaria were included. Data were pooled using Stata.14 software. We performed subgroup analysis based on the different types of ACTs groups and participants. Results A total of 13 studies comprising 5180 people were included. The meta-analysis showed that ACTs had the lower risk of number of any parasitemia (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, p=0.039; I-2=90.50%, p<0.001), early treatment failure (RR=0.17; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48, pI(2)=66.60%, p=0.011) and late treatment failure (RR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92, pI(2)=87.80%, p<0.001) compared with SP. There was no significant difference in adequate clinical response, average hemoglobin and adverse neonatal outcomes. Conclusion Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPT-SP.

Education actively helps us develop our well-being and health, but postgraduate students are at high risk of depression. The prevalence of depression symptoms varies from 6.2% to 84.7% among them, and its changes throughout the years remains unclear. The present study aimed to estimate the real prevalence of depression symptoms among postgraduate students and the changes from 1980 to 2020. Thirty-seven primary studies with 41 independent reports were included in the meta-analysis (none reports were in high-quality, three were medium-to-high quality, 20 were low-to-medium quality, and 18 were low-quality), involving 27,717 postgraduate students. The pooled prevalence of overall, mild, moderate, and severe depression symptoms was 34% (95% CI: 28-40, I-2 = 98.6%), 27% (95% CI: 22-32, I-2 = 85.8%), 13% (95% CI: 8-21, I-2 = 97.3%), and 8% (95% CI: 6-11, I-2 = 81.0%), respectively. Overall, the prevalence of depression symptoms remained relatively constant through the years following 1980 (overall: beta = -0.12, 95% CI: [-0.39, 0.15], p = 0.39; mild: beta = 0.24, 95% CI: [-0.02, 0.51], p = 0.07; moderate: beta = -0.24, 95% CI: [-0.75, 0.26], p = 0.34; severe: beta = 0.13, 95% CI: [-0.25, 0.51], p = 0.50). Doctoral students experienced more depressive symptoms than did master's students (43% vs. 27%; Q = 2.23, df = 1, p = 0.13), and studies utilising non-random sampling methods reported a higher prevalence of mild depression and lower moderate depression symptoms than those that used random sampling (overall: 34% vs. 29%; Q = 0.45, df = 1, p = 0.50; mild: 29% vs. 21%; Q = 1.69, df = 1, p = 0.19; moderate: 16% vs. 25%; Q = 1.79, df = 1, p = 0.18; severe: 8% vs. 9%; Q = 0.13, df = 1, p = 0.72) despite these differences was not statistically significant. The prevalence of depression symptoms was moderated by the measurements and the quality of primary studies. More than one-third of postgraduates reported depression symptoms, which indicates the susceptibility to mental health risk among postgraduates. School administrators, teachers, and students should take joint actions to prevent mental disorders of postgraduates from increasing in severity.

Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. Study Design and Setting: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). Conclusion: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.