Coronavirus Disease 2019 , caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has affected tens of millions of people globally since it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. There is an urgent need for safe and effective preventive vaccines to curb this pandemic. A growing amount of related research has been published. This study aimed to provide the current status of COVID-19 vaccine using bibliometric analysis. We searched Embase.com and MEDLINE comprehensively and included articles, articles in press, reviews, short surveys, conference abstracts and conference papers about COVID-19 vaccine. VOSviewer1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) was applied to perform the bibliometric analysis of these papers. A total of 1,312 papers were finally included. The BMJ has been the most popular journal in this field. The United States maintained a top position worldwide and has provided a pivotal influence, followed by China, India and United Kingdom. Among all the institutions, Harvard University was regarded as a leader for research collaboration. We analyzed the keywords and identified seven COVID-19 vaccine research hotspot clusters. COVID-19 vaccine research hotspots focus on clinical trials on vaccine safety and efficacy, research on vaccine immunology and immunoinformatics, and vaccine hesitancy. Our analysis results demonstrated that cooperation between countries, institutions, and authors were insufficient. The results suggested that clinical trials on vaccine safety, efficacy, immunology, immunoinformatics, production and delivery are research hotspots. Furthermore, we can predict that there will be a lot of research focusing on vaccine adverse reactions.

Objective: Lianhua Qingwen combined with Western medicine (LHQW+WM) has been proposed as a viable treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 . Interestingly, umbrella reviews of systematic reviews (SRs), which provide the most comprehensive evidence, are the best evidence in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, an umbrella review of SRs that summarizes and evaluates the efficacy of LHQW+WM for COVID-19 is urgently required.Methods: Overall, 6 databases were used to conduct a comprehensive literature search from inception to January 22, 2022. The corrected covered area (CCA) was used to analyze the overlapping between SRs. Meta-analysis was conducted when that of the included SRs was inappropriate. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was also employed to assess the quality of the included SRs.Results: In total, 12 SRs were identified, which included 12 unique primary studies. The included SRs ranged in quality from moderate to critically low and had an extremely high CCA (36.4%). Compared to conventional treatment, LHQW+WM showed efficacy concerning fatigue recovery [risk ratio (RR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-2.73, n = 2, I 2 = 0%], cough recovery (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.51, n = 3, I 2 = 39.1%), and overall effective rates (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07-1.28, n = 3, I 2 = 17.5%).Conclusion: LHQW+WM may improve the clinical symptoms of patients with COVID-19; however, the results should be interpreted cautiously because of the rigorous processes in the included SRs.

Objective To evaluate the comprehensive prevalence of anxiety among postgraduates and estimate its changes with a meta‐analysis. Method Systematic retrieval to SAGE, ERIC, EBSCO, Wiley, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science database was performed for quantitative studies on the prevalence of anxiety among graduate students published before November 22, 2022. The prevalence of anxiety synthesized with random‐effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted by study characteristics (publication year, sampling method, and measurements) and subjects’ characteristics (gender, region, and educational level). Result Fifty studies were included in the meta‐analysis, totaling 39,668 graduate students. The result revealed that 34.8% of graduates suffered from the anxiety (95% CI: 29.5%–40.5%). Specifically, 19.1% (95% CI: 15.4%–23.5%) had mild anxiety, 15.1% (95% C: 11.6%–19.6%) had moderate anxiety, and 10.3% (95% CI: 7.2%–14.6%) had severe anxiety. And this prevalence showed a upward trend since 2005. Besides, master students suffered slightly less than doctoral students (29.2% vs. 34.3%), and female had similar anxiety to male (26.4% vs. 24.9%). Due to the COVID‐19, the prevalence of anxiety is higher after the pandemic than that before (any anxiety: 34.3% vs. 24.8%). Compared with other countries, students from Saudi Arabia, India, and Nepal were more vulnerable. The results of quality assessment showed that, 5 (10%) were in high quality, 21 (42%) were in moderate to high quality, 21 (42%) were in low to moderate quality, and 3 (6%) were in low quality. But, the studies with low quality tend to report a higher prevalence than that with high quality (40.3% vs. 13.0%), studies with nonrandom sampling tend to report a higher prevalence than that with random sampling (33.6% vs. 20.7%). Although we included the data collected based on the standard scales, there were higher heterogeneity among the measure ( Q = 253.1, df = 12, p < .00). Conclusion More than one‐third postgraduates suffered from anxiety disorder, and this prevalence had a slight upward trend since 2005, school administrators, teachers and students should take joint actions to prevent mental disorder of graduates for deteriorating.

IntroductionIn 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionAlthough 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.