ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinical research publications have become the dominant source and basis of clinical evidence-based decision-making. Exploring the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database is useful for clarifying the changing trends of clinical research development in recent years. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis of the type and quantity of clinical research publications in the PubMed database over three decades was conducted. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to retrieve clinical research according to the type and year of publication from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 2020. The research types were classified as primary and secondary literature. RESULTS: A total of 1,078,404 primary literatures were retrieved and the constituent proportions were ranked from high to low as case report/series (27.54%), randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (23.62%), cohort studies (21.05%), cross-sectional studies (17.49%), case control studies (9.15%), non-RCTs (1.01%), and pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) (0.15%). Correspondingly, 1,302,173 secondary literatures were retrieved and ranked as narrative review (70.88%), systematic review (15.02%), systematic review and meta-analyses (13.89%), traditional meta-analyses (4.48%), expert consensus (2.31%), guidelines (1.49%), scoping reviews (0.68%), net meta-analyses (0.40%), and umbrella reviews (0.04%). The average annual growth rate for the primary literature was 10.28%, and ranked from high to low as PCTs (83.68%), cohort studies (17.74%), cross-sectional studies (17.61%), non-RCTs (12.11%), case control studies (8.86%), RCTs (7.68%), case report/series (7.51%); while that for the secondary literature was 10.57%, and ranked from high to low as net meta-analyses (48.97%), umbrella reviews (47.09%), scoping reviews (41.92%), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (33.44%), systematic reviews (33.05%), traditional meta-analyses (12.49%), expert consensuses (9.22%), narrative review (8.72%), and guidelines (2.82%). CONCLUSION: Both the composition and number of clinical studies changed significantly from 1991 to 2020. Based on the trend, the case report/series, case control study, and narrative review are on the decline, while cohort study, cross-sectional study, systematic reviews, and systematic review and meta-analysis literature have increased. To improve the quality of clinical evidence, we recommend RCT and cohort study give priority to access to allocated research resources in future.
Subject(s)
PubMed/trends , Case-Control Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) plays plays an important role in nosocomial infection. To explore the heteroresistance of PA to imipenem (IMP), we detected the sensitivity of 140 strains of PA to IMP using the KB method and VITEK method. Combined with resistance mutation analysis, the heteroresistance of PA to IMP was determined. Whilst, the double disk synergy test and SYBGreen RT-PCR for efflux pump were performed in IMP-heteroresistant PA strains. In this study, we confirmed 20 IMP-heteroresistant strains. The double disk synergy tests suggested that none of 20 heteroresistant PA strains produced metalloenzyme. The SYBGreen quantitative RT-PCR revealed that the MexAB expression level of efflux pump in IMP-heteroresistant PA was significantly higher than that in the IMP-sensitive strains (P<0.05), while there was no significantly different between the MexCD expression between resistant strains and sensitive strains (P<0.05). We believe that the clinicians should pay more attention to the PA heteroresistance to IMP, and the heteroesistance of PA to IMP is related to high expression in the MexAB of PA efflux pump.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis remains difficulty. The previous reports have shown that the T-SPOT.TB assay may be a more promising diagnostic tool for TB, however, it needs a further study to evaluate the diagnostic value of T-SPOT.TB for the specific populations in a high prevalence setting. METHODS: In this present study, we conducted stratified and comparable analyses to explore the clinical value and the limitation of T-SPOT.TB assay in TB diagnosis in a high TB prevalence setting, Southern China. A total of 413 subjects including 163 pulmonary TB (PTB), 39 extrapulmonary TB (EPTB), 106 non-TB pulmonary diseases (NTBPDs), 20 medical staff and 85 healthy controls were included in the study. RESULTS: According to T-SPOT.TB, there had a high incidence of latent TB infection (LTBI) in general population in Southern China, especially in the NTBPDS and medical staff. The T-SPOT.TB had a high performance in the diagnosis of active TB (ATB) in a lower risk of TB infection population such as the general population, however, the T-SPOT.TB for the diagnosis of ATB in the high risk of TB infection populations involving close contacts such as the patients with pulmonary diseases (PD) or medical staff isn't reliable due to the interference by LTBI. Under this condition, the value of rule-out of the assay was seemed to be better than that of rule-in. We believed that the T-SPOT.TB is suitable for screening both the EPTB and the ATB combined with diabetes mellitus (DM). However, we found that the sensitivity of T-SPOT.TB in sputum smear-negative population wasn't as high as that in smear-positive population. CONCLUSIONS: The T-SPOT.TB testing results should be interpreted with caution combined with subject's characteristics in a high prevalence setting.
