Effects of massage therapy on preterm infants and their mothers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Massage therapy for preterm newborns has received increasing attention in recent years due to its beneficial clinical outcomes. However, disagreements persist in different investigations. Method: We performed a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web Science, and CINAHL to retrieve randomized controlled trials of premature infants receiving massage therapy and its impact on maternal and infant outcomes. Outcomes were mother-infant attachment, oxygen saturation, motor funtion, reflex, temperature, and calorie intake. The tool developed by the Cochrane collaboration assessed risk bias. With a 95% confidence interval (CI), the integration's results were presented as the mean difference or standardized mean difference. The registration number was CRD42022337849. Results: Of 940 records retrieved, 15 trials were included. Massage therapy increased oxygen saturation (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.00, 95% CI [1.17 to 2.83], P < 0.0001). Massage therapy can strengthen mother-infant attachment [SMD = 2.83, 95% CI (2.31 to 3.35), P < 0.00001]. Other outcomes, including motor activity, relaxation, caloric intake, and temperature, did not differ significantly. Conclusion: Massage therapy can significantly improve oxygen saturation and strengthen maternal-infant attachment. However, prior to making a recommendation, additional research with a larger sample size and more rigorous design should be conducted due to the heterogeneity of studies in several outcomes.

Tracking trends in COVID-19 vaccines based on 47 different vaccines: A bibliometric review.

The COVID-19 epidemic in December 2019 had a significant negative impact on people's health and economies all across the world. The most effective preventive measure against COVID-19 is vaccination. Therefore, the development and production of COVID-19 vaccines is booming worldwide. This study aimed to analyze the current state of that research and its development tendency by bibliometrics. We conducted a thorough search of the Web of Science Core Collection. VOSviewer1.6.18 was used to perform the bibliometric analysis of these papers. A total of 6,325 papers were finally included. The USA maintained a top position worldwide. Shimabukuro Tom T and Harvard University were the most prolific author and institution. The Vaccines was the most published journal. The research hotspots of COVID-19 vaccines can be classified into vaccine hesitancy, vaccine safety and effectiveness, vaccine immunogenicity, and adverse reactions to vaccines. Studies on various vaccination types have also concentrated on efficacy against continuously developing virus strains, immunogenicity, side effects, and safety.

Comparison of Reporting and Transparency in Published Protocols and Publications in Umbrella Reviews: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistencies between a protocol and its umbrella review (UR) may mislead readers about the importance of findings or lead to false-positive results. Furthermore, not documenting and explaining inconsistencies in the UR could reduce its transparency. To our knowledge, no study has examined the methodological consistency of the protocols with their URs and assessed the transparency of the URs when generating evidence. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the inconsistency of protocols with their URs in the methodology and assess the transparency of the URs. METHODS: We searched medical-related electronic databases from their inception to January 1, 2022. We investigated inconsistencies between protocols and their publications and transparencies in the search strategy, inclusion criteria, methods of screening and data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 31 protocols and 35 publications. For the search strategy, 39 inconsistencies between the protocols and their publications were found in 26 of the 35 (74%) URs, and 16 of these inconsistencies were indicated and explained. There were 84 inconsistencies between the protocols and their URs regarding the inclusion criteria in 31 of the 35 (89%) URs, and 29 of the inconsistencies were indicated and explained. Deviations from their protocols were found in 12 of the 32 (38%) URs reporting the methods of screening, 14 of the 30 (47%) URs reporting the methods of data extraction, and 11 of the 32 (34%) URs reporting the methods for quality assessment. Of the 35 URs, 6 (17%) were inconsistent with their protocols in terms of the tools for quality assessment; one-half (3/6, 50%) of them indicated and explained the deviations. As for the statistical analysis, 31 of the 35 (89%) URs generated 61 inconsistencies between the publications and their protocols, and 16 inconsistencies were indicated and explained. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high prevalence of inconsistencies between protocols and publications of URs, and more than one-half of the inconsistencies were not indicated and explained in the publications. Therefore, how to promote the transparency of URs will be a major part of future work.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for total pancreatectomy: a bibliometric review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy (MITP) is considered safe and feasible with limited evidence on this procedure. The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the current literature on MITP compared to open TP (OTP). METHOD: Randomized controlled trials and prospective non-randomized comparative studies were sought systematically in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL from their inception until December 2021. Outcome measures included operative time, length of hospital stay (LOH), spleen-preservation rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), need for transfusion, venous resection rate, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), biliary leakage, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation rate, overall 30-day morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > IIIa), 90-day mortality, 90-day readmission, examined lymph nodes (ELN). Pooled results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: 7 observational studies with a total of 4212 patients were included. MITP had a decreased EBL and transfusion rate, lower 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality with a longer LOH compared to OTP. There were no significant differences regarding operative time, spleen preservation rate, DGE, biliary leakage, venous resection rate, PPH, reoperation, 90-day readmission and ELN. DISCUSSION: Based on the available studies, MITP is safe and feasible compared to OTP in highly experienced hands from high-volume centers. Further high-quality studies are needed to verify the conclusion.

Global prevalence and trend of anxiety among graduate students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comprehensive prevalence of anxiety among postgraduates and estimate its changes with a meta-analysis. METHOD: Systematic retrieval to SAGE, ERIC, EBSCO, Wiley, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science database was performed for quantitative studies on the prevalence of anxiety among graduate students published before November 22, 2022. The prevalence of anxiety synthesized with random-effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted by study characteristics (publication year, sampling method, and measurements) and subjects' characteristics (gender, region, and educational level). RESULT: Fifty studies were included in the meta-analysis, totaling 39,668 graduate students. The result revealed that 34.8% of graduates suffered from the anxiety (95% CI: 29.5%-40.5%). Specifically, 19.1% (95% CI: 15.4%-23.5%) had mild anxiety, 15.1% (95% C: 11.6%-19.6%) had moderate anxiety, and 10.3% (95% CI: 7.2%-14.6%) had severe anxiety. And this prevalence showed a upward trend since 2005. Besides, master students suffered slightly less than doctoral students (29.2% vs. 34.3%), and female had similar anxiety to male (26.4% vs. 24.9%). Due to the COVID-19, the prevalence of anxiety is higher after the pandemic than that before (any anxiety: 34.3% vs. 24.8%). Compared with other countries, students from Saudi Arabia, India, and Nepal were more vulnerable. The results of quality assessment showed that, 5 (10%) were in high quality, 21 (42%) were in moderate to high quality, 21 (42%) were in low to moderate quality, and 3 (6%) were in low quality. But, the studies with low quality tend to report a higher prevalence than that with high quality (40.3% vs. 13.0%), studies with nonrandom sampling tend to report a higher prevalence than that with random sampling (33.6% vs. 20.7%). Although we included the data collected based on the standard scales, there were higher heterogeneity among the measure (Q = 253.1, df = 12, p < .00). CONCLUSION: More than one-third postgraduates suffered from anxiety disorder, and this prevalence had a slight upward trend since 2005, school administrators, teachers and students should take joint actions to prevent mental disorder of graduates for deteriorating.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4. RESULTS: A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice. CONCLUSION: Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

An umbrella review of Lianhua Qingwen combined with Western medicine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

Lianhua Qingwen combined with Western medicine (LHQW+WM) has been proposed as a viable treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Interestingly, umbrella reviews of systematic reviews (SRs), which provide the most comprehensive evidence, are the best evidence in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, an umbrella review of SRs that summarizes and evaluates the efficacy of LHQW+WM for COVID-19 is urgently required. Methods: Overall, 6 databases were used to conduct a comprehensive literature search from inception to January 22, 2022. The corrected covered area (CCA) was used to analyze the overlapping between SRs. Meta-analysis was conducted when that of the included SRs was inappropriate. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was also employed to assess the quality of the included SRs. Results: In total, 12 SRs were identified, which included 12 unique primary studies. The included SRs ranged in quality from moderate to critically low and had an extremely high CCA (36.4%). Compared to conventional treatment, LHQW+WM showed efficacy concerning fatigue recovery [risk ratio (RR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-2.73, n = 2, I2 = 0%], cough recovery (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.51, n = 3, I2 = 39.1%), and overall effective rates (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07-1.28, n = 3, I2 = 17.5%). Conclusion: LHQW+WM may improve the clinical symptoms of patients with COVID-19; however, the results should be interpreted cautiously because of the rigorous processes in the included SRs. Graphical abstract: http://links.lww.com/AHM/A32.

COVID-19 vaccine research focusses on safety, efficacy, immunoinformatics, and vaccine production and delivery: a bibliometric analysis based on VOSviewer.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected tens of millions of people globally since it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. There is an urgent need for safe and effective preventive vaccines to curb this pandemic. A growing amount of related research has been published. This study aimed to provide the current status of COVID-19 vaccine using bibliometric analysis. We searched Embase.com and MEDLINE comprehensively and included articles, articles in press, reviews, short surveys, conference abstracts and conference papers about COVID-19 vaccine. VOSviewer1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these papers. A total of 1,312 papers were finally included. The BMJ has been the most popular journal in this field. The United States maintained a top position worldwide and has provided a pivotal influence, followed by China, India and United Kingdom. Among all the institutions, Harvard University was regarded as a leader for research collaboration. We analyzed the keywords and identified seven COVID-19 vaccine research hotspot clusters. COVID-19 vaccine research hotspots focus on clinical trials on vaccine safety and efficacy, research on vaccine immunology and immunoinformatics, and vaccine hesitancy. Our analysis results demonstrated that cooperation between countries, institutions, and authors were insufficient. The results suggested that clinical trials on vaccine safety, efficacy, immunology, immunoinformatics, production and delivery are research hotspots. Furthermore, we can predict that there will be a lot of research focusing on vaccine adverse reactions.