No abstract

Background:Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are usually prescribed to protect against gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy. This meta-analysis reviewed clinical outcomes in patients taking aspirin and clopidogrel, with and without concomitant PPIs to address concerns of adverse reactions.Methods:We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published between January 1, 2010 and April 11, 2017. The primary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events and gastrointestinal bleeding. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, revascularization, cardiogenic death, and all-cause mortality.Results:The meta-analysis included 33,492 patients in 4 randomized controlled trials and 8 controlled observational studies. Overall, patients taking PPIs had statistical differences in major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratio (OR) 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.28); P = .001; I2 = 28.3%], gastrointestinal bleeding [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.36–0.92); P = .022; I2 = 80.6%], stent thrombosis [OR 1.30 (95% CI 1.01–1.68); P = .041; I2 = 0%], and revascularization [OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.04–1.38); P = .011; I2 = 5.1%], compared those not taking PPIs. There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.87–1.22); P = .742; I2 = 0%], cardiogenic death [OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.83–1.43); P = .526; I2 = 0%], or all-cause mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93–1.25); P = .329; I2 = 0%).Conclusions:Among the patients taking aspirin and clopidogrel, the results indicated that the combined use of PPIs increased the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, stent thrombosis, and revascularization.

BackgroundOlfaction is one of the five basic senses of human beings. As such, olfactory dysfunction seriously affects patients' quality of life and can even endanger them. In recent years, olfactory dysfunction has attracted greater research interest, and numerous studies have been published on olfactory dysfunction. However, there are few studies on olfactory dysfunction through bibliometric analysis. This study aims to describe the current situation and identify the foci and potential new research directions of olfactory dysfunction using a bibliometric approach.MethodsArticles related to olfactory dysfunction published from 2002 to 2021 were located in the Web of Science Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics (London, UK). Bibliometric analyses were conducted with the CiteSpace (Chaomei Chen, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and VOSviewer (Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) software programs.ResultsThe number of articles published each year showed an upward trend, especially in 2020, where a sharp increase had occurred due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The United States was the country with the most publications and the strongest international cooperation. In terms of institutions, the greatest number of publications from a single institution came from Dresden University of Technology. Thomas Hummel was the author who had contributed the most articles. An analysis of co-citation networks and burst keywords in the field revealed a shift from “gonadotropin-releasing hormone” and “apoptosis” earlier on to “olfactory training,” “COVID-19,” and “Parkinson's disease” more recently. “Outcome,” “COVID-19,” “infection,” and “pathogenesis” are topics of the research frontier and hotspots.ConclusionMore attention has been paid to olfactory dysfunction as the understanding of it has improved in the past 20 years. This study provides researchers with an objective, systematic, and comprehensive analysis of the literature on olfactory dysfunction. The current frontier areas and hotspots in the field focus on the pathological mechanisms of olfactory dysfunction after infection with COVID-19 and its different prognoses. The pathophysiological mechanism of olfactory dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases and COVID-19 will be a primary future research direction.