ObjectiveTo systematically review the medication adherence in children with tic disorder to assist in the selection of clinical treatment options and enhance the efficacy of medications for tic disorder.MethodsDatabases including Medline (Ovid), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched from inception to August 2020, and original studies on medication adherence in children with tic disorder were included. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data on the definition of compliance, compliance rate, and factors affecting compliance, and evaluated risk bias of included studies. Systematic review was performed to analyze the status of medication adherence in children with tic disorder.ResultsA total of 12 studies were included, involving seven randomized controlled trials, two case series studies, and three cross-sectional studies. Most studies failed to specify the definition of compliance. The results of cross-sectional studies showed that the proportion of children with good medication compliance was 29.3% to 47.1%. The first-line treatment drugs, tiapride, risperidone, aripiprazole, and clonidine, had relatively good adherence. Medication adherence was affected by drug factors, patient and family factors, and environmental factors.ConclusionsThe adherence rate of medications for tic disorder varies between studies. Few studies have analyzed the factors that affect medication adherence for tic disorder, and some influencing factors are controversial. The first-line treatment drugs, tiapride, risperidone, aripiprazole, and clonidine, have high medication adherence and are recommended for clinical use.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the level and variation of Chinese scholars' scientific research capability in the world by analysing the status of literature published on top-five global biomedicine journals by Chinese scholars in the past 10 years.MethodsLiterature published on NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, Lancet and PLoS Medicine from 2007 to 2016 were searched in PubMed database. Types of diseases were classified by using International Classification of Diseases (version 10) (ICD-10). Quantitatively analysis were used to classify the different authors, institutes, studies designs, quality of publication and variation.ResultsLiterature (56.4%) published on Lancet had the largest quantity among the top-five journals. Infectious and parasitic diseases, circulation system diseases, cancers, endocrine, nutrition and metabolic diseases and neuropsychiatric diseases were the top-five in disease categories list, accounting for 38.4%. In different study design, reviews (non-experimental research) and randomized controlled trials were the first and the second study types, separately.ConclusionsFor productivity of Chinese scholars’ diseases publications on top-five medical journals, the top-five specific diseases are from the top-five disease categories-infectious and parasitic diseases, circulation system diseases, cancer, endocrine, nutrition and metabolic diseases and neuropsychiatric diseases. The main study types are reviews, randomized controlled trials and cross-sectional studies.
ObjectiveTo describe the current status of the evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews and develop the list of evaluation indexes. MethodsPubMed, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library (OVID), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for systematic reviews about the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards from inception to 28th April, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The frequency and ratio were used to describe the current status, while the qualitative synthesis was used to develop the list. ResultsA total of 133 systematic reviews were included. Sensitivity (133/133, 100.0%), specificity (131/133, 98.5%) and AUC (80/133, 60.2%) were used more frequently than 50%. Q index (6/133, 4.5%), false positive rate (3/133, 2.3%), Kappa value (2/133, 1.5%), false negative rate (1/133, 5%) and Youden's index were used less frequently than 5%. In order to evaluate the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews comprehensively, a total of 14 index related to validity and predictability could be considered. ConclusionThe evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents in systematic reviews are inconsistent and limited, so there is an urgent need to develop standardized evaluation indicators based on expert consensus.