-
Medicine Dec 2023Metformin is an old drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can play a variety of roles by regulating the gut microbiota. The number of research...
BACKGROUND
Metformin is an old drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can play a variety of roles by regulating the gut microbiota. The number of research articles on metformin in the gut microbiota has increased annually; however, no bibliometric tools have been used to analyze the research status and hot trends in this field. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of publications on metformin and gut microbiota.
METHODS
We searched the Web of Science core collection database on June 8, 2023, for papers related to metformin and gut microbiota from 2012 to 2022. We used Microsoft Excel 2021, VOSviewer1.6.19, CiteSpace 6.2.4, and R software package "bibliometrix" 4.0.0 to analyze the countries, institutions, authors, journals, citations, and keywords of the included publications.
RESULTS
We included 517 papers, and the trend in publications increased over the last 11 years. The 517 articles were from 57 countries, including 991 institutions and 3316 authors, and were published in 259 journals. China led all countries (233 papers) and the most influential institution was the Chinese Academy of Sciences (16 papers). PLOS ONE (19 papers) was the most popular journal, and Nature (1598 citations) was the most cited journal. Li and Kim were the 2 most published authors (six papers each), and Cani (272 co-citations) was the most co-cited author. "Metabolites," "aging," and "intestinal barrier" were emerging topics in this field.
CONCLUSIONS
This bibliometric study comprehensively summarizes the research trends and progress of metformin and gut microbiota, and provides new research topics and trends for studying the effects of metformin on gut microbiota in different diseases.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Academies and Institutes; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 38115325
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036478 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Sep 2022Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its benefits. Such needs have led to an increased interest in measuring the benefits of eHealth, especially using the willingness to pay (WTP) metric as an accurate proxy for consumers' perceived benefits of eHealth. This offered us an opportunity to systematically review and synthesize evidence from the literature to better understand WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to provide a systematic review of WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.
METHODS
This study was performed and reported as per the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and PsycINFO databases were searched from their inception to April 19, 2022. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate WTP values for eHealth (at 2021 US dollar rates) and meta-regression analyses to examine the factors affecting WTP.
RESULTS
A total of 30 articles representing 35 studies were included in the review. We found that WTP for eHealth varied across studies; when expressed as a 1-time payment, it ranged from US $0.88 to US $191.84, and when expressed as a monthly payment, it ranged from US $5.25 to US $45.64. Meta-regression analyses showed that WTP for eHealth was negatively associated with the percentages of women (β=-.76; P<.001) and positively associated with the percentages of college-educated respondents (β=.63; P<.001) and a country's gross domestic product per capita (multiples of US $1000; β=.03; P<.001). Compared with eHealth provided through websites, people reported a lower WTP for eHealth provided through asynchronous communication (β=-1.43; P<.001) and a higher WTP for eHealth provided through medical devices (β=.66; P<.001), health apps (β=.25; P=.01), and synchronous communication (β=.58; P<.001). As for the methods used to measure WTP, single-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.13; P<.001), double-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.20; P<.001), and payment scale (β=1.11; P<.001) were shown to obtain higher WTP values than the open-ended format. Compared with ex ante evaluations, ex post evaluations were shown to obtain lower WTP values (β=-.37; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
WTP for eHealth varied significantly depending on the study population, modality used to provide eHealth, and methods used to measure it. WTP for eHealth was lower among certain population segments, suggesting that these segments may be at a disadvantage in terms of accessing and benefiting from eHealth. We also identified the modalities of eHealth that were highly valued by consumers and offered suggestions for the design of eHealth interventions. In addition, we found that different methods of measuring WTP led to significantly different WTP estimates, highlighting the need to undertake further methodological explorations of approaches to elicit WTP values.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Humans; Publications; Regression Analysis; Telemedicine
PubMed: 36103227
DOI: 10.2196/25959 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2021: Nowadays the use of intraoral scanners has become a routine practice in orthodontics. It allows the introduction of many treatment innovations. One should consider to... (Review)
Review
: Nowadays the use of intraoral scanners has become a routine practice in orthodontics. It allows the introduction of many treatment innovations. One should consider to what extent intraoral scanners have influenced the everyday orthodontic practice and in what direction should the further research in this field be conducted. This study is aimed to systematically review and synthesize available controlled trials investigating the accuracy and efficacy of intraoral scanners for orthodontic purpose to provide clinically useful information and to direct further research in this field. : A literature search of free text and MeSH terms was performed by using MedLine (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and Embase. The search engines were used to find studies on application of intraoral scanners in orthodontics (from 1950 to 30 September 2020). The following keywords were used: "intraoral scanners AND efficiency AND accuracy AND orthodontics". : The number of potential identified articles was 71, including 61 from PubMed, two from Scopus, three from Web of Science and five from Embase. After removal of duplicates, 67 full-text articles were analyzed for inclusion criteria, 16 of them were selected and finally included in the qualitative synthesis. : There are plenty of data available on accuracy and efficacy of different scanners. Scanners of the same generation from different manufacturers have almost identical accuracy. This is the reason why future similar research will not introduce much to the orthodontics. The challenge for the coming years is to find new applications of digital impressions in the orthodontic practice.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Dental Care; Humans; Orthodontics; PubMed; Search Engine
PubMed: 33513981
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18031121 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Jun 2020Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but...
BACKGROUND
Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR.
METHODS
Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS
After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.
Topics: Bias; Health Services Research; Humans; Publication Bias; Research Design
PubMed: 32487022
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01010-1 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Apr 2022Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to... (Review)
Review
Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to evaluate the current evidence base in AL amyloidosis. Literature searches on clinical, health-related quality of life, economic and resource use evidence were conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases as well as gray literature. This SLR yielded 84 unique studies from: five randomized controlled trials; 54 observational studies; 12 health-related quality of life studies, none with utility values; no economic evaluation studies; and 16 resource use studies, none with indirect costs. This SLR highlights a paucity of published literature relating to randomized controlled trials, utility values, economic evaluations and indirect costs in AL amyloidosis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Databases, Factual; Humans; Immunoglobulin Light-chain Amyloidosis; Publications; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35188424
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0261 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking Cessation; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34519354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The surge in the number of publications on psoriasis has posed significant challenges for researchers in effectively managing the vast amount of information. However,...
BACKGROUND
The surge in the number of publications on psoriasis has posed significant challenges for researchers in effectively managing the vast amount of information. However, due to the lack of tools to process metadata, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis has been conducted.
OBJECTIVES
This study is to evaluate the trends and current hotspots of psoriatic research from a macroscopic perspective through a bibliometric analysis assisted by machine learning based semantic analysis.
METHODS
Publications indexed under the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Psoriasis" from 2003 to 2022 were extracted from PubMed. The generative statistical algorithm latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) was applied to identify specific topics and trends based on abstracts. The unsupervised Louvain algorithm was used to establish a network identifying relationships between topics.
RESULTS
A total of 28,178 publications were identified. The publications were derived from 176 countries, with United States, China, and Italy being the top three countries. For the term "psoriasis", 9,183 MeSH terms appeared 337,545 times. Among them, MeSH term "Severity of illness index", "Treatment outcome", "Dermatologic agents" occur most frequently. A total of 21,928 publications were included in LDA algorithm, which identified three main areas and 50 branched topics, with "Molecular pathogenesis", "Clinical trials", and "Skin inflammation" being the most increased topics. LDA networks identified "Skin inflammation" was tightly associated with "Molecular pathogenesis" and "Biological agents". "Nail psoriasis" and "Epidemiological study" have presented as new research hotspots, and attention on topics of comorbidities, including "Cardiovascular comorbidities", "Psoriatic arthritis", "Obesity" and "Psychological disorders" have increased gradually.
CONCLUSIONS
Research on psoriasis is flourishing, with molecular pathogenesis, skin inflammation, and clinical trials being the current hotspots. The strong association between skin inflammation and biologic agents indicated the effective translation between basic research and clinical application in psoriasis. Besides, nail psoriasis, epidemiological study and comorbidities of psoriasis also draw increased attention.
Topics: Humans; United States; Psoriasis; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Bibliometrics; Dermatitis; Machine Learning; Inflammation
PubMed: 37954610
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1272080 -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2023The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.
METHODS
A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.
RESULTS
Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.
CONCLUSION
Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Bias; Checklist; Research Report; MEDLINE
PubMed: 38098023
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x -
PloS One 2021GPRC5A is associated with various cancer initiation and progression. Controversial findings have been reported about GPRC5A prognostic characteristics, and no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
GPRC5A is associated with various cancer initiation and progression. Controversial findings have been reported about GPRC5A prognostic characteristics, and no meta-analysis has been conducted to assess the relationship between GPRC5A and cancer prognosis. Therefore, the objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the overall prognostic effectiveness of GPRC5A.
METHODS
We first conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Cochrane, and WangFang databases. The hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were then pooled to assess the associations between GPRC5A expression and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), event-free survival (EFS), and clinicopathological characteristics. Chi-squared test and I2 statistics were completed to evaluate the heterogeneity in our study. A random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity existed (I2>50% and p<0.05); otherwise, we chose the fixed-effect model. Subgroup analysis was stratified by tumor type, region, HR obtained measurements, and sample capacity to explore the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
In total, 15 studies with 624 patients met inclusion criteria of this study. Our results showed that higher expression of GPRC5A is associated with worse OS (HR:1.69 95%CI: 1.20-2.38 I2 = 75.6% p = 0.000), as well as worse EFS (HR:1.45 95%CI: 1.02-1.95 I2 = 0.0% p = 0.354). Subgroup analysis indicated that tumor type might be the source of high heterogeneity. Additionally, cancer patients with enhanced GPRC5A expression were more likely to lymph node metastasis (OR:1.95, 95%CI 1.33-2.86, I2 = 43.9%, p = 0.129) and advanced tumor stage (OR: 1.83, 95%CI 1.15-2.92, I2 = 61.3%, p = 0.035), but not associated with age, sex, differentiation, and distant metastasis.
CONCLUSION
GPRC5A can be a promising candidate for predicting medical outcomes and used for accurate diagnosis, prognosis prediction for patients with cancer; however, the predictive value of GPRC5A varies significantly according to cancer type. Further studies for this mechanism will be necessary to reveal novel insights into application of GPRC5A in cancers.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Neoplasms; Prognosis; Progression-Free Survival; Publication Bias; Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled
PubMed: 33788883
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249040 -
BMJ Global Health Oct 2022In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.
METHODS
A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.
RESULTS
A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.
CONCLUSION
Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.
Topics: Bibliometrics; COVID-19; Europe; Humans; North America; Research Design
PubMed: 36220305
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009378