The gut microbiome dysbiosis and regulation by fecal microbiota transplantation: umbrella review.

Background: Gut microbiome dysbiosis has been implicated in various gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal diseases, but evidence on the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for therapeutic indications remains unclear. Methods: The gutMDisorder database was used to summarize the associations between gut microbiome dysbiosis and diseases. We performed an umbrella review of published meta-analyses to determine the evidence synthesis on the efficacy and safety of FMT in treating various diseases. Our study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022301226). Results: Gut microbiome dysbiosis was associated with 117 gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal. Colorectal cancer was associated with 92 dysbiosis. Dysbiosis involving Firmicutes (phylum) was associated with 34 diseases. We identified 62 published meta-analyses of FMT. FMT was found to be effective for 13 diseases, with a 95.56% cure rate (95% CI: 93.88-97.05%) for recurrent Chloridoids difficile infection (rCDI). Evidence was high quality for rCDI and moderate to high quality for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease but low to very low quality for other diseases. Conclusion: Gut microbiome dysbiosis may be implicated in numerous diseases. Substantial evidence suggests FMT improves clinical outcomes for certain indications, but evidence quality varies greatly depending on the specific indication, route of administration, frequency of instillation, fecal preparation, and donor type. This variability should inform clinical, policy, and implementation decisions regarding FMT.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

A novel adenosine signalling-based prognostic signature in gastric cancer and its association with cancer immune features and immunotherapy response.

Reliable prognostic signatures that can reflect the intrinsic characteristics of gastric cancer (GC) are still rare. Here, we developed an adenosine-based prognostic signature and explored its association with the tumour immune in GC patients, aiming at confirming the prognostic value of adenosine-related genes and guiding the GC risk stratification and immunotherapeutic response prediction. We collected adenosine pathway-related genes from STRING websites and manual searching. We enrolled the The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort and four gene expression omnibus cohorts of GC for generating and validating the adenosine pathway-based signature using the Cox regression method. Gene expression in the signature was verified using polymerase chain reaction. We also performed gene set enrichment analysis, immune infiltration assessment and immunotherapy response prediction based on this signature. Our study resulted in a six-gene adenosine signature (GNAS, CXCR4, PPP1R1B, ADCY6, NT5E and NOS3) for risk stratification of GC prognosis, with the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve up to 0.767 for predicting 10-year overall survival (OS). In the training cohort, patients with signature-defined high risk had significantly poorer OS than those with low risk (p < .001). Multivariate analysis identified the signature as an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio 2.863, 95% confidence interval [1.871-4.381], p < .001). These findings were confirmed in four independent cohorts. Expression detection showed that all signature genes were upregulated in both GC tissues and cell lines. Further analysis revealed that the signature-defined high-risk patients were characterised by immunosuppressive states and associated with a poor immunotherapy response. In conclusion, the adenosine pathway-based signature represents a promising risk stratification tool for GC in guiding individualised prognostication and immunotherapy.

Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.

Objectives: To systematically explore how the sources of evidence, types of primary studies, and tools used to assess the quality of the primary studies vary across systematic reviews (SRs) in public health. Methods: We conducted a methodological survey of SRs in public health by searching the of literature in selected journals from electronic bibliographic databases. We selected a 10% random sample of the SRs that met the explicit inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data for analysis. Results: We selected 301 SRs for analysis: 94 (31.2%) of these were pre-registered, and 211 (70.1%) declared to have followed published reporting standard. All SRs searched for evidence in electronic bibliographic databases, and more than half (n = 180, 60.0%) searched also the references of the included studies. The common types of primary studies included in the SRs were primarily cross-sectional studies (n = 132, 43.8%), cohort studies (n = 126, 41.9%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, n = 89, 29.6%), quasi-experimental studies (n = 83, 27.6%), case-control studies (n = 58, 19.3%) qualitative studies (n = 38, 12.6%) and mixed-methods studies (n = 32, 10.6%). The most frequently used quality assessment tools were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (used for 50.0% of cohort studies and 55.6% of case-control studies), Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (50.7% of RCTs) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (38.5% of qualitative studies). Only 20 (6.6%) of the SRs assessed the certainty of the body of evidence, of which 19 (95.0%) used the GRADE approach. More than 65% of the evidence in the SRs using GRADE was of low or very low certainty. Conclusions: SRs should always assess the quality both at the individual study level and the body of evidence for outcomes, which will benefit patients, health care practitioners, and policymakers.

Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs. METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I2 = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I2 = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL. CONCLUSION: IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.

Photodynamic therapy combined with systemic chemotherapy for unresectable extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) is a tumor with high invasiveness and poor outcome. The current treatments for unresected ECC are not ideal. Novel strategies are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with unresected ECC. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) plus chemotherapy is one of the promising interventions for ECC patients. We conducted this systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of PDT plus chemotherapy in unresected ECC patients. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of science were searched from inception to July 2022. Studies that compared PDT plus chemotherapy to PDT alone or chemotherapy alone in patients with unresected ECC were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for overall survival (OS) and adverse events, respectively. RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were finally included. There are four studies on PDT plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone and three studies on PDT plus chemotherapy vs. PDT alone. The meta-analysis showed that PDT plus chemotherapy had a significantly better OS than chemotherapy or PDT alone (PDT+chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, HR: 0.69, p = 0.02; PDT+chemotherapy vs. PDT alone, HR:0.36, p<0.01). The occurrence of cholangitis, abscess, and photosensitivity reaction in PDT plus chemotherapy were comparable to either chemotherapy alone or PDT alone (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The combination of PDT and chemotherapy can improve patient survival for unresected ECC without increased adverse events. It may be a potential standard therapy in the future management of ECC.

Photodynamic therapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment in advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A phase 2-3 clinical trial protocol.

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has been approved as the first-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer in China. The treatment response of immune checkpoint inhibitor is highly dependent on the immune condition within the tumor microenvironment. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has a long history in cancer treatment, and recent studies showed it had an immunomodulatory effect on the tumor. Here we will conduct a trial to assess whether or not a combination with Photodynamic therapy will improve the outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Methods: This study is a single-center, open-label, randomized controlled, phase 2-3 trial. Patients (18-65 years old) with untreated gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma will be eligible for this trial. Sixty participants will be enrolled and randomly divided into the test group (n = 30) and control group (n = 30) to receive photodynamic therapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy, respectively. The primary is progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes include objective response rates (ORRs) and the occurrence of adverse events. In addition, we will also assess the changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and tumor microenvironment after photodynamic therapy treatment in the test group. Evaluation of the tumor response will be performed every two cycles for a maximum of eight cycles. Discussion: Photodynamic therapy has an immunomodulatory effect on the tumor microenvironment; however, this has not been demonstrated for gastric cancer in a clinical trial. Based on our experience of photodynamic therapy treatment in digestive tract tumors, we plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial on this topic. This will be the first study to evaluate the synergistic effect of photodynamic therapy with immunochemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Ethics and dissemination: It was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of Lanzhou University Second Hospital (No. 2022A-491). When this trial is completed, it will be shared at conferences and submitted for a potential publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2200064280.

Reporting guidelines for surgical technique could be improved: a scoping review and a call for action.

OBJECTIVES: To identify reporting guidelines related to surgical technique and propose recommendations for areas that require improvement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A protocol-guided scoping review was conducted. A literature search of MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, Google Scholar, and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations was conducted to identify surgical technique reporting guidelines published up to December 31, 2021. RESULTS: We finally included 55 surgical technique reporting guidelines, vascular surgery (n = 18, 32.7%) was the most common among the clinical specialties covered. The included guidelines generally showed a low degree of international and multidisciplinary cooperation. Few guidelines provided a detailed development process (n = 14, 25.5%), conducted a systematic literature review (n = 13, 23.6%), used the Delphi method (n = 4, 7.3%), or described post-publication strategy (n = 6, 10.9%). The vast majority guidelines focused on the reporting of intraoperative period (n = 50, 90.9%). However, of the guidelines requiring detailed descriptions of surgical technique methodology (n = 43, 78.2%), most failed to provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate description. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates significant deficiencies in the development methodology and practicality of reporting guidelines for surgical technique. A standardized reporting guideline that is developed rigorously and focuses on details of surgical technique may serve as a necessary impetus for change.

Promoting the quality and transparency of health research in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To review the efforts and progress in promoting quality and transparency of health research in China and to discuss how to improve. METHODS: We focused on three different types of health research: clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, and summarized China's progress from their registration, implementation, and reporting stages. RESULTS: In the last 3 decades, China's major works include the following: 1) For registration, the trials and CPGs registries have been set up, and released policies to mandate registration and submission of protocols for trials. 2) For implementation, multiple clinical research and EBM centers have been established. The ResMan platform for data management has been created and required researchers to share results data. 3) For reporting, the Chinese EQUATOR Center has been set up. Translations and extensions of the CONSORT, PRISMA, and RIGHT have been published. 4) For traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), specific guidelines for the registration and reporting of TCM research have been developed. CONCLUSION: China has made progress in promoting research quality and transparency, especially in research registration and reporting. Nevertheless, more can be done in data management and sharing for research implementation, and good publication practices in TCM.

Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To survey the citations of retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in scientific literature. METHODS: We searched the Web of Science and Google Scholar from their inception to 30 April 2020 to find the citations of 153 previously identified retracted non-Cochrane SRs. We calculated the numbers of citations before and after retraction separately. We also described how the citation addressed the retraction and how it was used in the article. RESULTS: A We identified 954 citations of 128 retracted SRs. The number of retracted SRs and citations reached the peak in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and the majority of the citations (n = 580, 60.8%) were in articles published after the SR was retracted. The mean number of citation per retracted SRs was 7.5. 2.6 before and 4.5 after the publication of the retraction notice. Twenty-nine (5.0%) citations indicated the retraction of the SRs in the reference section. Nine of these citations supported the retracted SR's results, and 15 disagreed with them. CONCLUSION: Retracted SRs continue to be cited after the publication of the retraction notice. Standardized methods are needed to guide the management of retractions and avoid inappropriate citations of retracted articles.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not). Findings: Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death. Interpretation: Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

Methodology and experiences of rapid advice guideline development for children with COVID-19: responding to the COVID-19 outbreak quickly and efficiently.

BACKGROUND: Rapid Advice Guidelines (RAG) provide decision makers with guidance to respond to public health emergencies by developing evidence-based recommendations in a short period of time with a scientific and standardized approach. However, the experience from the development process of a RAG has so far not been systematically summarized. Therefore, our working group will take the experience of the development of the RAG for children with COVID-19 as an example to systematically explore the methodology, advantages, and challenges in the development of the RAG. We shall propose suggestions and reflections for future research, in order to provide a more detailed reference for future development of RAGs. RESULT: The development of the RAG by a group of 67 researchers from 11 countries took 50 days from the official commencement of the work (January 28, 2020) to submission (March 17, 2020). A total of 21 meetings were held with a total duration of 48 h (average 2.3 h per meeting) and an average of 16.5 participants attending. Only two of the ten recommendations were fully supported by direct evidence for COVID-19, three recommendations were supported by indirect evidence only, and the proportion of COVID-19 studies among the body of evidence in the remaining five recommendations ranged between 10 and 83%. Six of the ten recommendations used COVID-19 preprints as evidence support, and up to 50% of the studies with direct evidence on COVID-19 were preprints. CONCLUSIONS: In order to respond to public health emergencies, the development of RAG also requires a clear and transparent formulation process, usually using a large amount of indirect and non-peer-reviewed evidence to support the formation of recommendations. Strict following of the WHO RAG handbook does not only enhance the transparency and clarity of the guideline, but also can speed up the guideline development process, thereby saving time and labor costs.

Sildenafil for adult Asian patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with untreated pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has historically been poor. Previous studies have recommended that sildenafil was beneficial, but the dose varies greatly. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of sildenafil [dose: 20 mg/three times a day (TID)] for adult Asian PAH patients. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data) were searched from their inception to January 2022. We recruited all randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions that compared sildenafil (20 mg/TID) versus placebo or symptomatic treatment for adult Asian PAH patients. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 480 participants were included. Compared to symptomatic treatment, sildenafil-treated patients were more likely to walk 57.68 meters further in six-minute walk distance [mean difference (MD) =57.68 m, 95% confidence interval (CI): 41.55 to 73.81], achieve an improvement in systemic arterial oxygen saturation (MD =2.48%, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.71), and increase the score of the Borg scale for dyspnea (MD =-0.99 points, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.53). The total number of patients with World Health Organization class III and IV also exhibited a downtrend. Compared to the placebo, sildenafil was associated with a reduction in the mean pulmonary artery pressure (MD =-4.13 mmHg, 95% CI: -6.52 to -1.74) and the level of brain natriuretic peptide (MD =-86.16 pg/mL, 95% CI: -103.39 to -68.93). The most common adverse events were headache, flushing, dyspepsia, and diarrhea, which were relatively mild. DISCUSSION: Sildenafil at a dose of 20 mg/TID is well tolerated in adult Asian PAH patients, and is associated with statistically significant improvements in exercise capacity, cardio-pulmonary function, and haemodynamic indices. The long-term prognosis still needs to be evaluated and confirmed by further trials.

Potentially effective drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 or MIS-C in children: a systematic review.

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using potential drugs: remdesivir and glucocorticoid in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating MIS-C. We searched seven databases, three preprint platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google from December 1, 2019, to August 5, 2021, to collect evidence of remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and IVIG which were used in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. A total of nine cohort studies and one case series study were included in this systematic review. In terms of remdesivir, the meta-analysis of single-arm cohort studies have shown that after the treatment, 54.7% (95%CI, 10.3 to 99.1%) experienced adverse events, 5.6% (95%CI, 1.2 to 10.1%) died, and 27.0% (95%CI, 0 to 73.0%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation. As for glucocorticoids, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the fixed-effect summary odds ratio for the association with mortality was 2.79 (95%CI, 0.13 to 60.87), and the mechanical ventilation rate was 3.12 (95%CI, 0.80 to 12.08) for glucocorticoids compared with the control group. In terms of IVIG, most of the included cohort studies showed that for MIS-C patients with more severe clinical symptoms, IVIG combined with methylprednisolone could achieve better clinical efficacy than IVIG alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the current evidence in the included studies is insignificant and of low quality. It is recommended to conduct high-quality randomized controlled trials of remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C to provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines. WHAT IS KNOWN: • The efficacy and safety of using potential drugs such as remdesivir, glucocorticoid, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19/MIS-C are unclear. WHAT IS NEW: • Overall, the current evidence cannot adequately demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of using remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and IVIG in treating children and adolescents with COVID-19 or MIS-C. • We are calling for the publication of high-quality clinical trials and provide substantial evidence for the development of guidelines.