With the estimated high prevalence in the population, the two symptoms of pain and depression threaten the well-being of millions worldwide. Researches of the two symptoms increased year by year. Top-cited studies will help to understand the achievement and guide researchers toward the direction of the research field. However, it is unclear for researches in the field of pain and depression. In this paper, we reviewed the bibliometric characteristics of the top-cited papers about pain and depression. We will review the evidence of authorship, country of origin, institution, journal, study type, and publication year for the 100 top-cited studies on pain and depression based on the Web of Science Core collection. We also highlight studies with the highest cited times. Our study concluded that pain and depression were correlated, which may share common biological pathways.

Objective: Clinical trials contribute to the development of clinical practice. However, little is known about the current status of trials on artificial intelligence (AI) conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit. The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of registered trials in such field based on ClinicalTrials.gov.Methods: Registered trials on AI conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov up to 12th January 2021. The characteristics were analyzed using SPSS21.0 software.Results: A total of 146 registered trials were identified, including 61 in emergency department and 85 in intensive care unit. They were registered from 2004 to 2021. Regarding locations, 58 were conducted in Europe, 58 in America, 9 in Asia, 4 in Australia, and 17 did not report locations. The enrollment of participants was from 0 to 18,000,000, with a median of 233. Universities were the primary sponsors, which accounted for 43.15%, followed by hospitals (35.62%), and industries/companies (9.59%). Regarding study designs, 85 trials were interventional trials, while 61 were observational trials. Of the 85 interventional trials, 15.29% were for diagnosis and 38.82% for treatment; of the 84 observational trials, 42 were prospective, 14 were retrospective, 2 were cross-sectional, 2 did not report clear information and 1 was unknown. Regarding the trials' results, 69 trials had been completed, while only 10 had available results on ClinicalTrials.gov.Conclusions: Our study suggest that more AI trials are needed in emergency department and intensive care unit and sponsors are encouraged to report the results.

Background Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs. Results This meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I2=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I2=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I2=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I2=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I2=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I2=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I2=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Conclusions We recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding. Trial registration The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 (CRD42021273780). Graphical abstract

Objectives To investigate the diagnostic performance of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for detecting COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus database until September 21, 2021. Statistical analysis included data pooling, forest plot construction, heterogeneity testing, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Results We included 24 studies with 8382 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and the area under the curve (AUC) of CO-RADS ≥ 3 for detecting COVID-19 were 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–0.93), 0.68 (95% CI 0.60–0.75), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.84–0.90), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity and AUC of CO-RADS ≥ 4 were 0.83 (95% CI 0.79–0.87), 0.84 (95% CI 0.78–0.88), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87–0.92), respectively. Cochran’s Q test ( p < 0.01) and Higgins I 2 heterogeneity index revealed considerable heterogeneity. Studies with both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients had higher specificity than those with only symptomatic patients using CO-RADS ≥ 3 and CO-RADS ≥ 4. Using CO-RADS ≥ 4, studies with participants aged < 60 years had higher sensitivity (0.88 vs. 0.80, p = 0.02) and lower specificity (0.77 vs. 0.87, p = 0.01) than studies with participants aged > 60 years. Conclusions CO-RADS has favorable performance in detecting COVID-19. CO-RADS ≥ 3/4 might be applied as cutoff values given their high sensitivity and specificity. However, there is a need for more well-designed studies on CO-RADS. Key Points • CO-RADS shows a favorable performance in detecting COVID-19. • CO-RADS ≥ 3 had a high sensitivity 0.89 (95% CI 0.85–0.93), and it may prove advantageous in screening the potentially infected people to prevent the spread of COVID-19. • CO-RADS ≥ 4 had high specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.78–0.88) and may be more suitable for definite diagnosis of COVID-19.