Changing trends in clinical research literature on PubMed database from 1991 to 2020.

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.

Diagnostic performance of microRNAs in testicular germ cell tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The sensitivity (Sen) of classic biomarkers for the diagnosis of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) is currently low. Previous studies have shown the diagnostic potential of microRNAs (miRNAs) for TGCTs; however, the results of these studies are inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate their diagnostic value. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 30, 2020 and 18 trials from 11 studies involving 2,068 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Using a bivariate mixed-effects meta-analysis model, the pooled Sen, specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval values of total miRNAs were 0.83 (0.73-0.90), 0.95 (0.89-0.98), 15.79 (7.41-33.66), 0.18 (0.11-0.29), 87.13 (41.99-180.82), and 0.95 (0.93-0.97), respectively; however, the observed values of single miR-371a-3p were 0.84 (0.76-0.90), 0.95 (0.91-0.98), 18.41 (9.69-34.97), 0.17 (0.11-0.26), 111.56 (47.72-260.80), and 0.97 (0.95-0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that miRNAs that included miR-371a-3p showed higher predictive performance than those that did not (P < 0.05). This research identified that miR-371a-3p has a high diagnostic value for TGCTs, except teratoma.

Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The performance of Xpert MTB/RIF using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted. Studies published before 31 December 2019 were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords "pulmonary tuberculosis," "Xpert MTB/RIF," and "BAL." Two independent evaluators extracted the data and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. A random-effects model was used to calculate the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC), as well as the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nineteen trials involving 3,019 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the culture method, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the AUC with 95% CIs of Xpert MTB/RIF were 0.87 (0.84 to 0.90), 0.92 (0.91 to 0.93), 10.21 (5.78 to 18.02), 0.16 (0.12 to 0.22), 78.95 (38.59 to 161.53), and 0.9467 (0.9462 to 0.9472), respectively. Relative to the composite reference standard, the observed values were 0.69 (0.65 to 0.72), 0.98 (0.98 to 0.99), 37.50 (18.59 to 75.62), 0.30 (0.21 to 0.43), 171.98 (80.82 to 365.96), and 0.9691 (0.9683 to 0.9699), respectively. All subgroups, except children, showed high sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, the use of Xpert MTB/RIF in the context of BAL samples has a high diagnostic performance for PTB (except for children) and may serve as an alternative rapid diagnostic tool.