ObjectiveBased on the method of bibliometrics, to visually analyze the current research status of DNA polymerase epsilon catalytic/DNA polymerase delta catalytic subunit (POLE/POLD1) mutations in colorectal cancer, and further to explore its current hot spots and to look forward to future development trends.MethodsUsed the Web of Science database as the data source to retrieve the published related literatures in the 30 years from the establishment of the database to September 2020, and used VOSviewer 1.6.11 and CiteSpace 5.7 software to analyze the the distribution of research countries/institutions, authors and keywords in the included published literatures. And to perform cluster analysis, time evolution analysis and Burst analysis on keywords, draw corresponding visual maps and analyzed them.ResultsA total of 299 published articles were included. Bibliometric analysis showed that the application of POLE/POLD1 mutations in colorectal cancer had developed steadily in recent years. After 2012, the number of published studies had increased significantly; the journals with the most articles were Familial Cancer and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. The author with the highest number of articles was Tomlinson I. The analysis of countries and regions showed that the United States was the main country for research in this field and had contributed the most to the amount of publications. After analyzed the academic institutions/universities where the researchers were located, it could be seen that the University of Oxford was the research university/institution with the most publications. Keyword cluster analysis and time evolution analysis showed that the research hotspots in this field focus on the impact of this gene mutation on immunotherapy. Burst analysis showed that the current published research in this field started two years after publication and continues to be highly cited.ConclusionsPOLE/POLD1 mutation has undoubtedly become a hot area of current research in colorectal cancer research. Among them, tumor immunotherapy is the focus of research in this field.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia.MethodsCNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews (SRs) of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia from inception to March 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 was used to assess the methodological quality and GRADE was used to grade the outcome indicators of included SRs.ResultsA total of 10 SRs were included, containing six Chinese herb injections (Xiyanping injection, Yanhuning injection, Tanreqing injection, Reduning injection, Shuanghuanglian injection, and Chuanhuning injection). Five items of AMSTAR 2 were reported well, and two items were not reported in any of the included SRs, and the quality was unsatisfactory. The efficacy of Chinese herb injection was superior than that of western medicine in many outcome indicators, such as antipyretic time, the pulmonary rales disappearing time, and the total clinical efficiency. The quality of evidence ranged from medium to very low.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the quality of SRs of Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia requires improvement, and most of the results show that Chinese herb injections are more effective than western medicines.
Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variants as instrumental variables to explore the effects of exposures on health outcomes. STROBE-MR (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using Mendelian randomization) assists authors in reporting their MR studies clearly and transparently, and helpfully to improve the quality of MR. This paper interpreted the STROBE-MR, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand, disseminate, and apply it.
The PRISMA aims to enhance the transparency and reporting quality of systematic reviews. PRISMA 2020 is an update version of PRISMA 2009, which was published in BMJ in March, 2021. This article compared the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2009, interpreted PRISMA 2020 with representative examples, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand and apply this reporting guideline, thus to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.