Background:Recently,ultra-processed foods(UPFs)have attracted considerable attention,leading to numerous studies worldwide.Scientometrics is currently gaining popularity among scientific communities,offering advantage...Background:Recently,ultra-processed foods(UPFs)have attracted considerable attention,leading to numerous studies worldwide.Scientometrics is currently gaining popularity among scientific communities,offering advantage of providing critical references to scholars of specific fields.Methods:This scientometric study aimed to analyze trends and hotspots of UPF research using English articles or reviews related to UPFs retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection on March 5,2023.Two independent researchers selected the identified records on titles,abstracts,and author’s keywords,and the data were analyzed using R-bibliometrix,CiteSpace,and VOSviewer.Results:A total of 1018 publications(901 articles and 117 reviews)published from 2010 to 2023 were included.The result showed a significant increase in UPF publications over the past decades.Brazil published the highest number of papers(n=473),with over half of the top 10 active institutions were located in Brazil.The University of São Paulo contributed the most publications(n=206)and the 10 most productive authors belonged to this institution,with Monteiro CA and Levy RB contributing the most publications.The main research foundations included the NOVA system,the definition of UPFs,the prevalence of UPFs,and the impact of UPFs on dietary quality and health status.The main research frontiers included topics such as“systematic review,”“NOVA food classification,”“COVID-19,”“diabetes,”“pregnancy,”“food addiction,”“warning labels,”“plant-based diet,”and“commercial determinants of health”.Conclusions:This study provided a comprehensive overview of development trends and research hotspots of global UPF studies.展开更多
Background:Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve migraine-related symptoms.However,the findings of previous systematic reviews(SRs)and meta-analyses(MAs)are still not completely consistent.Their quality is also ...Background:Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve migraine-related symptoms.However,the findings of previous systematic reviews(SRs)and meta-analyses(MAs)are still not completely consistent.Their quality is also unknown,so a comprehensive study is needed.Objective:To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of these MAs concerning acupuncture for migraine,and summarize evidence about the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for migraine.Search strategy:Pub Med,Embase,Cochrane Library,China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Chinese Biomedical Databases,Wanfang Data,and VIP databases were searched from inception to September 2020,with a comprehensive search strategy.Inclusion criteria:The pairwise MAs of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)concerning migraine treated by acupuncture or acupuncture-based therapies,with a control group that received sham acupuncture,medication,no treatment,or acupuncture at different acupoints were included.Data extraction and analysis:Two independent investigators screened studies,extracted relevant data,and assessed reporting and methodological quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA)2009 and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2(AMSTAR 2),then all results were cross-checked.Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores.Results:A total of 20 MAs were included in this study.The included MAs indicated that acupuncture was efficacious and safe in preventing and treating migraine when compared with control intervention.There was a high correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores(rs=0.87,P<0.001).The quality of the included SRs needs to be improved mainly with regard to protocol and prospective registration,using a comprehensive search strategy,summarizing the strength of evidence body for key outcomes,a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion,reporting of RCTs’funding sources,and assessing the potential impact o展开更多
Background:Uveal melanoma is the most prevalent intraocular malignancy.In preceding decades,many studies have been published on uveal melanoma.However,so far,uveal melanoma-related bibliometric studies have not been r...Background:Uveal melanoma is the most prevalent intraocular malignancy.In preceding decades,many studies have been published on uveal melanoma.However,so far,uveal melanoma-related bibliometric studies have not been reported.Methods:Uveal melanoma-related articles and reviews published between 2005 and 2019 were retrieved in the Web of Science Core Collection on March 15,2020.Three bibliometric tools(HistCite,VOSviewer,and CiteSpace)were employed to conduct the current study.Results:A total of 3,404 publications related to uveal melanoma were identified,involving 3015 articles(88.57%)and 389 reviews(11.43%)with 65,429 co-cited references in 9 languages,which were published by 2,875 institutions in 66 countries/regions.The United States contributed to most publications(n=1427,41.92%),and the Thomas Jefferson University was involved in most of the studies(n=160,5.56%).Investigative Ophthalmology&Visual Science published the majority of the papers(n=175,5.14%),whereas Ophthalmology received the most co-citations(n=7050).Shields CL owned the most publications and co-citations(n=122 and 2151,respectively).Gene and molecular biology aspects,prevalence,the main prognosis factor,and treatment were the intellectual foundations of uveal melanoma research.In the field of uveal melanoma,emerging hotspots of uveal melanoma include epidemiologic characteristics,prognosis factors,mechanisms of uveal melanoma development,the use of novel predictive tools,and clinical applications of novel targeted drugs.Conclusion:This first bibliometric study focused on the integral tendency of the past 15 years,identified landmark items,and revealed current research hotspots in the field of uveal melanoma,which will provide references for clinicians and researchers,as well as an example of visualization analysis to explore research hotspots in other fields.展开更多
Background:Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease responsible for a substantial disease burden worldwide.Multiple protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis have been publi...Background:Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease responsible for a substantial disease burden worldwide.Multiple protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis have been published,but their reporting quality remains unknown,with potential influencing factors failing to be explored.Therefore,the present systematic review was designed to fill those gaps in our knowledge.Methods:The protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis will be searched systematically through the PubMed and Embase online databases from inception to May 2021.Two reviewers will independently screen the literature and abstract data,and cross-check the results.The reporting quality of protocols included in the review will be evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols checklist,and potential influencing factors(e.g.,methodologist involvement and number of authors)for reporting quality will be explored using univariable and multivariable linear regression methods.The general information of the protocols included in the review will be reported qualitatively.Excel 2019 and Stata 13.0 software will be used to manage and analyze the data.P-values<0.05 will be considered statistically significant.Results:The results of this methodological systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Conclusion:The systematic review will provide evidence of the reporting quality of protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis.The evidence from the present review will be available to inform the reporting of future protocols.展开更多
Objective:This scoping review will summarize COVID-19 vaccine research activities and describe the extent,range,and nature of evidence in the research of COVID-19 vaccines.Methods:Following Arksey and O’Malley’s fra...Objective:This scoping review will summarize COVID-19 vaccine research activities and describe the extent,range,and nature of evidence in the research of COVID-19 vaccines.Methods:Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the methodological guidance of Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI),we propose a scoping review to summarize the extent,range,and na-ture of evidence in research related to COVID-19 vaccines.Based on research questions developed by us,a comprehensive search will be performed using the PubMed,Cochrane Library,Embase,Web of Science,CNKI,CBM,VIP,and WanFang databases by two independent reviewers.According to our predefined inclusion criteria,pairs of reviewers will independently assess theeligibility of the identified studies from the databases.Following literature selection,pairs of reviewers will extract relevant information related to our research questions.Subsequently,methodological quality and reporting quality of key evidence types(i.e.,random-ized controlled trials,systematic reviews,and meta-analyses)will be evaluated using commonly used tools,if possible.Qualitative synthesis and descriptive statistics will be used to summarize and present the results.In addition,new or updated meta-analysis will be conducted to pool the available data in included primary studies where possible.To track the trends in COVID-19 vaccine research,we plan to update our results approximately every 2-3 months.For preparing this scoping review protocol,we referred to the PRISMA-P checklist,and for reporting the following full texts,we will be following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.Conclusion:We believe that the results of this scoping review on COVID-19 vaccine will contribute to providing foundational knowledge and will have significant value in the research and practice concerning COVID-19 vaccines.The findings will also allow us to identify research gaps on this topic and also help us guide future research on COVID-19 vaccines.展开更多
BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hie...BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence,one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence.However,the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.AIM To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.METHODS Nursing science citation indexed(SCI-indexed)journals were identified from the professional website.Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017.Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as“YES”,“PARTLY”,or“NO”according to information reported by the included studies.The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1,0.5,and 0,respectively.The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as“high”(more than 15),“medium”(10.5 to 14.5),and“low”(less than 10).The means,standard deviations,odds ratios(OR),and the associated 95%confidence interval(CI)were determined using Stata 12.0 software.RESULTS Ultimately,184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified,with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18(mean=13.6±2.3).Of the included case reports,10.3%were regarded low-quality,52.7%were considered middle-quality,and 37%were regarded high-quality.There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding(14.2±1.7 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4456)and journal impact factor<1.8 versus impact factor≥1.8(13.3±2.3 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4977).Five items from the CARE guidelines,5a(Patient),6(Clinical findings),8c(Diagnostic reasoning),9(Therapeutic intervention),and 11d(The main take-away lessons)were well-reported(Rep展开更多
文摘Background:Recently,ultra-processed foods(UPFs)have attracted considerable attention,leading to numerous studies worldwide.Scientometrics is currently gaining popularity among scientific communities,offering advantage of providing critical references to scholars of specific fields.Methods:This scientometric study aimed to analyze trends and hotspots of UPF research using English articles or reviews related to UPFs retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection on March 5,2023.Two independent researchers selected the identified records on titles,abstracts,and author’s keywords,and the data were analyzed using R-bibliometrix,CiteSpace,and VOSviewer.Results:A total of 1018 publications(901 articles and 117 reviews)published from 2010 to 2023 were included.The result showed a significant increase in UPF publications over the past decades.Brazil published the highest number of papers(n=473),with over half of the top 10 active institutions were located in Brazil.The University of São Paulo contributed the most publications(n=206)and the 10 most productive authors belonged to this institution,with Monteiro CA and Levy RB contributing the most publications.The main research foundations included the NOVA system,the definition of UPFs,the prevalence of UPFs,and the impact of UPFs on dietary quality and health status.The main research frontiers included topics such as“systematic review,”“NOVA food classification,”“COVID-19,”“diabetes,”“pregnancy,”“food addiction,”“warning labels,”“plant-based diet,”and“commercial determinants of health”.Conclusions:This study provided a comprehensive overview of development trends and research hotspots of global UPF studies.
文摘Background:Acupuncture has been widely used to relieve migraine-related symptoms.However,the findings of previous systematic reviews(SRs)and meta-analyses(MAs)are still not completely consistent.Their quality is also unknown,so a comprehensive study is needed.Objective:To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of these MAs concerning acupuncture for migraine,and summarize evidence about the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for migraine.Search strategy:Pub Med,Embase,Cochrane Library,China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Chinese Biomedical Databases,Wanfang Data,and VIP databases were searched from inception to September 2020,with a comprehensive search strategy.Inclusion criteria:The pairwise MAs of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)concerning migraine treated by acupuncture or acupuncture-based therapies,with a control group that received sham acupuncture,medication,no treatment,or acupuncture at different acupoints were included.Data extraction and analysis:Two independent investigators screened studies,extracted relevant data,and assessed reporting and methodological quality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA)2009 and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2(AMSTAR 2),then all results were cross-checked.Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores.Results:A total of 20 MAs were included in this study.The included MAs indicated that acupuncture was efficacious and safe in preventing and treating migraine when compared with control intervention.There was a high correlation between reporting and methodological quality scores(rs=0.87,P<0.001).The quality of the included SRs needs to be improved mainly with regard to protocol and prospective registration,using a comprehensive search strategy,summarizing the strength of evidence body for key outcomes,a full list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion,reporting of RCTs’funding sources,and assessing the potential impact o
文摘Background:Uveal melanoma is the most prevalent intraocular malignancy.In preceding decades,many studies have been published on uveal melanoma.However,so far,uveal melanoma-related bibliometric studies have not been reported.Methods:Uveal melanoma-related articles and reviews published between 2005 and 2019 were retrieved in the Web of Science Core Collection on March 15,2020.Three bibliometric tools(HistCite,VOSviewer,and CiteSpace)were employed to conduct the current study.Results:A total of 3,404 publications related to uveal melanoma were identified,involving 3015 articles(88.57%)and 389 reviews(11.43%)with 65,429 co-cited references in 9 languages,which were published by 2,875 institutions in 66 countries/regions.The United States contributed to most publications(n=1427,41.92%),and the Thomas Jefferson University was involved in most of the studies(n=160,5.56%).Investigative Ophthalmology&Visual Science published the majority of the papers(n=175,5.14%),whereas Ophthalmology received the most co-citations(n=7050).Shields CL owned the most publications and co-citations(n=122 and 2151,respectively).Gene and molecular biology aspects,prevalence,the main prognosis factor,and treatment were the intellectual foundations of uveal melanoma research.In the field of uveal melanoma,emerging hotspots of uveal melanoma include epidemiologic characteristics,prognosis factors,mechanisms of uveal melanoma development,the use of novel predictive tools,and clinical applications of novel targeted drugs.Conclusion:This first bibliometric study focused on the integral tendency of the past 15 years,identified landmark items,and revealed current research hotspots in the field of uveal melanoma,which will provide references for clinicians and researchers,as well as an example of visualization analysis to explore research hotspots in other fields.
基金The authors did not receive any funding for this study.
文摘Background:Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease responsible for a substantial disease burden worldwide.Multiple protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis have been published,but their reporting quality remains unknown,with potential influencing factors failing to be explored.Therefore,the present systematic review was designed to fill those gaps in our knowledge.Methods:The protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis will be searched systematically through the PubMed and Embase online databases from inception to May 2021.Two reviewers will independently screen the literature and abstract data,and cross-check the results.The reporting quality of protocols included in the review will be evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols checklist,and potential influencing factors(e.g.,methodologist involvement and number of authors)for reporting quality will be explored using univariable and multivariable linear regression methods.The general information of the protocols included in the review will be reported qualitatively.Excel 2019 and Stata 13.0 software will be used to manage and analyze the data.P-values<0.05 will be considered statistically significant.Results:The results of this methodological systematic review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Conclusion:The systematic review will provide evidence of the reporting quality of protocols of systematic reviews of interventions for knee osteoarthritis.The evidence from the present review will be available to inform the reporting of future protocols.
文摘Objective:This scoping review will summarize COVID-19 vaccine research activities and describe the extent,range,and nature of evidence in the research of COVID-19 vaccines.Methods:Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the methodological guidance of Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI),we propose a scoping review to summarize the extent,range,and na-ture of evidence in research related to COVID-19 vaccines.Based on research questions developed by us,a comprehensive search will be performed using the PubMed,Cochrane Library,Embase,Web of Science,CNKI,CBM,VIP,and WanFang databases by two independent reviewers.According to our predefined inclusion criteria,pairs of reviewers will independently assess theeligibility of the identified studies from the databases.Following literature selection,pairs of reviewers will extract relevant information related to our research questions.Subsequently,methodological quality and reporting quality of key evidence types(i.e.,random-ized controlled trials,systematic reviews,and meta-analyses)will be evaluated using commonly used tools,if possible.Qualitative synthesis and descriptive statistics will be used to summarize and present the results.In addition,new or updated meta-analysis will be conducted to pool the available data in included primary studies where possible.To track the trends in COVID-19 vaccine research,we plan to update our results approximately every 2-3 months.For preparing this scoping review protocol,we referred to the PRISMA-P checklist,and for reporting the following full texts,we will be following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.Conclusion:We believe that the results of this scoping review on COVID-19 vaccine will contribute to providing foundational knowledge and will have significant value in the research and practice concerning COVID-19 vaccines.The findings will also allow us to identify research gaps on this topic and also help us guide future research on COVID-19 vaccines.
文摘BACKGROUND As a significantly important part of clinical practice,the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways.Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence,one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence.However,the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.AIM To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.METHODS Nursing science citation indexed(SCI-indexed)journals were identified from the professional website.Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017.Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as“YES”,“PARTLY”,or“NO”according to information reported by the included studies.The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1,0.5,and 0,respectively.The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as“high”(more than 15),“medium”(10.5 to 14.5),and“low”(less than 10).The means,standard deviations,odds ratios(OR),and the associated 95%confidence interval(CI)were determined using Stata 12.0 software.RESULTS Ultimately,184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified,with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18(mean=13.6±2.3).Of the included case reports,10.3%were regarded low-quality,52.7%were considered middle-quality,and 37%were regarded high-quality.There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding(14.2±1.7 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4456)and journal impact factor<1.8 versus impact factor≥1.8(13.3±2.3 vs 13.6±2.4,respectively;P=0.4977).Five items from the CARE guidelines,5a(Patient),6(Clinical findings),8c(Diagnostic reasoning),9(Therapeutic intervention),and 11d(The main take-away lessons)were well-reported(Rep
