Ziziphus jujuba Mill. (Z. jujuba) is a traditional herb with a long history of use for nutrition and the treatment of a broad spectrum of diseases. It grows mostly in South and East Asia, as well as in Australia and Europe. Mounting evidence shows the health benefits of Z. jujuba, including anticancer, anti-inflammation, antiobesity, antioxidant, and hepato- and gastrointestinal protective properties, which are due to its bioactive compounds. Chemotherapy, such as with cis-diamminedichloroplatinium (CDDP, cisplatin) and its derivatives, is widely used in cancer treatment. It is an effective treatment for human cancers, including ovarian cancer; however, drug resistance is a major obstacle to successful treatment. A better understanding of the mechanisms and strategies for overcoming chemoresistance can greatly improve therapeutic outcomes for patients. In this review article, the bioactive compounds present in Z. jujuba are explained. The high prevalence of many different cancers worldwide has recently attracted the attention of many researchers. This is why our research group focused on studying the anticancer activity of Z. jujuba as well as its impact on chemoresistance both in vivo and in vitro. We hope that these studies can lead to a promising future for cancer patients.

In Iran, cardiovascular diseases are the most common causes of death. We aimed to perform a systematic review on the prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Iran based on Persian and English papers had been published from 1985 to 2015. Among 267 initially found articles, 142 were excluded; finally, a total number of 40 articles were found relevant which were reduced to 18. Smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia were the most common risk factors for AMI. Premature MI prevalence was high in men, and smoking was the most common risk factor among young people. People in urban areas were more likely to experience AMI than rural people. The prevalence of AMI in Iran is high and has increased in recent years. Therefore, to restrain the rising trend of AMI, it is necessary to make the primary and secondary prevention efforts.

Introduction: The efficacy of oxytocin in the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has not been fully characterized. This systematic review and meta-analysis study evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of intranasally administered oxytocin for autism. Method: The study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Two authors searched Scopus, PubMed/ Medline, Google Scholar, and Web of Science search engines and databases from inception through December 2020. Quality assessment was carried out by with the “ROB-2, Cochrane collaboration's tool”. The random-effects model was used for pooled analyses. I2 and Q tests were used to investigate between study heterogeneity. The visual inspection of funnel plots along with the Egger’s regression asymmetry test were used to assess the potential sources of publication bias. Results: Ten RCTs were selected for the systematic review. No study corroborated the efficacy of oxytocin for the treatment of anxiety and repetitive behavior. One out of 4 studies reported clinical improvement in severity, and 1 out of 6 studies indicated improvement in social function. Our meta-analyses findings suggest that oxytocin shows no significant efficacy in the treatment of anxiety (SMD: −0.168, SE= 0.112; 95% CI: −0.387, 0.050, p = 0.132), repetitive behavior (SMD: −0.078, SE= 0.155; 95% CI: −0.382, 0.225, p = 0.614), social function (SMD: −0.018, SE= 0.133; 95% CI: −0.279, 0.242, p = 0.891) and severity (SMD: −0.084, SE= 132; 95% CI: −0.343, 0.175, p = 0.524) of autism. No significant heterogeneity nor publication bias were observed between studies. Conclusions: Our findings failed to corroborate the efficacy of oxytocin in the treatment of ASD. Nonetheless, given the several limitations of our study, the results should be interpreted cautiously and stimulate future research on this timely topic.

Background: Level of evidence (LoE) is a hierarchical system for classifying the quality of studies. Objectives: This study examined the factors affecting the number of citations to clinical articles related to the treatment of human diseases that have included the LoE in their abstracts. Methods: A total of 3,683 therapeutic articles published between 2011 and 2013 that mentioned the LoE in their abstract and were indexed in PubMed and Web of Science were retrieved. The LoE and type of study design were extracted from abstracts and other bibliographic and citation information was obtained from PubMed and Web of Science databases. Independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation test and linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between the variables. Results: Articles with level I evidence had the lowest frequency (290, 7.9%) and articles with level IV had the highest frequency (1,831, 49.7%). Five-year citations ranged from zero to 215, with a median of 13 citations. The median values of five-year citations from level I to level V were 20.5, 15, 14, 11, and 6 citations, respectively. Evaluation of the models to examine the factors affecting the number of citations showed that the change of evidence-level from level I to V reduced the number of citations (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Journal Impact Factor, LoE, number of references, number of authors, number of title words, number of pages, article type and subject category accounted for about 25% of the variation in five-year citations of clinical papers. Clinical papers with high LoE (levels I & II) received more citations over a five-year period than those with lower LoE (levels III & IV).