Objective To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses related to the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of corticosteroid hormone as an auxiliary means for the treatment of severe pneumonia which were published from establishment of the databases to October 25th, 2018 were searched. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to evaluate the quality of literature reports. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, all of which were non-Cochrane systematic reviews. In terms of methodological quality assessed by AMSTAR-2, there was no plan in all studies; only one study explained the reasons for inclusion in the study type; eight studies did not describe the dose and follow-up time of the intervention/control measures in detail; three studies did not indicate the evaluation tools and did not describe the risk bias; six studies did not explicitly examine publication bias. In terms of reporting quality assessed by PRISMA, all studies had no pre-registered study protocol or registration number; thirteen studies did not describe the specific amount of articles retrieved from each database; three studies did not present their retrieval strategies or excluded reasons in detail; no funding sources were identified in included studies; eight studies reported both whether the study was funded and whether there was a conflict of interest. Conclusions At present, there are many systematic review/meta-analysis studies on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid-assisted treatment for severe pneumonia, and the overall quality of the study has been gradually improved. However, the common problems in the study are relatively prominent. The follow-up period and dose of intervention in the study of severe pneumonia are different, so the baseline is difficult to be unified. Suggestions: strengthening the training of researchers, standardize the research process, and report articles in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement; subgroup analysis being conducted according to the dose and duration of the hormone.
ObjectivesTo analyze the research status and hot spots of hypertension-related clinical trials in special Chinese population registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), so as to provide a basis for the development of hypertension-related research in special population in China.MethodsThe ChiCTR was searched online (up to August 31st, 2019, no limitation in the status of trial registration), all clinical trials on hypertension in special population were collected, and the general characteristics, researched diseases, research types, intervention measures and main outcomes of the trials were analyzed.ResultsA total of 64 hypertension-related clinical trials in special population registered in the ChiCTR were included, including 41 (64.1%) trials registered in last 3 years. The registration status of 46 (71.9%) trials was pre-registration. The registered authors were mainly from colleges and universities or medical institutions (n = 61, 95.3%), of which 60.9% were registered in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Hebei. The researched diseases mainly included elderly hypertension and hypertensive stroke, accounting for 50% of the total. Additionally, 37 (57.8%) clinical trials were intervention studies, of which 21 (56.7%) were drug-based intervention studies. Blood pressure, blood glucose, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, blood lipid, cranial MRI and Glasgow Coma Scale were the commonly used outcomes, accounting for 58.5% of the total outcomes. Most blood pressure measurements did not indicate the measurement method (n = 22, 64.7%).ConclusionsThe quantity of hypertension-related clinical trials in special population registered on the ChiCTR is increasing, however, there exists regional imbalance. The drug intervention-related clinical trials of elderly hypertension have become a research hot spot. However, blood pressure measurement method is not indicated in most trials, and some researchers do not register in time. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should further strengthen the awareness of carrying out high-quality clinical trials.
ObjectiveTo analyze the global status, hotspots, and trends in atrial fibrillation anticoagulation research.MethodsWe searched Web of Science Core Collection to collect relevant literature on atrial fibrillation anticoagulation from 2006 to 2020. The visualization software CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to analyze co-citation, co-occurrence, and emergence analysis on publishing organizations, journals, and keywords and to explore the research hotspots and frontiers.ResultsA total of 11764 related studies were retrieved. In recent years, research on anticoagulation of atrial fibrillation has become increasingly popular. Most of the published researches were from North America, and the primary institution was the University of Birmingham. Research hotspots mainly focused on warfarin, stroke prevention, new oral anticoagulants, antithrombotic and anticoagulants, and complicating diseases. The research frontiers were the new oral anticoagulants, and the antithrombotic management of atrial fibrillation with coronary heart disease.ConclusionsThe global hotspot in atrial fibrillation anticoagulant research is warfarin, stroke prevention, new oral anticoagulants, antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy, and complicated diseases. The research focuses on the study of novel oral anticoagulants and the antithrombotic management of atrial fibrillation complicated with coronary heart disease.