Background. Network pharmacology (NP) has become an increasingly important focus in the drug research field over the past decade. However, no study to date has mapped the current status of NP. Therefore, we performed a bibliometric study to evaluate the top 100 cited papers on NP. Methods. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection from its inception to February 25, 2019, using the terms “network pharmacology” and “systems pharmacology.” Key data, including title, publication year, number of citations, authors, countries/regions, organizations, and journals, were retrieved and analyzed using Excel 2016 and VOSviewer 1.6.10. Results. The total number of citations for the 100 cited papers ranged from 21 to 1,238, published in 53 journals, from 2005 to 2017. The top three journals with the most publications on NP were Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (n = 8, IF2017 = 6.544), Journal of Ethnopharmacology (n = 8, IF2017 = 3.115), and PLoS One (n = 7, IF2017 = 2.766). Most published articles were from the USA (n = 41) and China (n = 35). The most active author was Wang Yonghua from the Northwest A&F University, and of the 100 publications, 14 listing his name. The most frequently used substantive terms included “drug discovery,” “traditional Chinese medicine (TCM),” “in-vitro,” “cancer,” and “cardiovascular disease.” Conclusions. The USA and China made the greatest contribution to NP research. The current NP research mainly focused on NP methods (including experimental validation) and using them to explore the molecular mechanisms of TCM for some critical diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers. Furthermore, we believe some guidelines should be developed to regulate NP studies.

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019, the controversy over the effectiveness, safety, and enforceability of masks used by the public has been prominent. This study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available high-quality design evidence concerning mask use during the spread of respiratory viruses and find evidence gaps. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinical trial registry, gray literature database, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in April 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. A bubble plot was designed to display information in four dimensions. Finally, twenty-one RCTs and nine SRs met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were of "Low quality" and focused on healthcare workers. Six RCTs reported adverse effects, with one implying that the cloth masks reuse may increase the infection risk. When comparing masks with usual practice, over 70% RCTs and also SRs showed that masks were "beneficial" or "probably beneficial"; however, when comparing N95 respirators with medical masks, 75% of SRs showed "no effect", whereas 50% of RCTs showed "beneficial effect". Overall, the current evidence provided by high-quality designs may be insufficient to deal with a second impact of the pandemic. Masks may be effective in interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses; however, the effect of an N95 respirator or cloth masks versus medical masks is unclear. Additional high-quality studies determining the impact of prolonged mask use on vulnerable populations (such as children and pregnant women), the possible adverse effects (such as skin allergies and shortness of breath) and optimal settings and exposure circumstances for populations to use masks are needed.

Objective:To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.Methods: Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.Results: Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear."Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy

This report presents a case study of school library programs in two rural counties in Western China. Since 2002, the libraries of Tianzhu and Tongwei high schools have undertaken a series of outreach initiatives to improve local residents' access to information and to address their cultural and educational needs. Over the past decade, both school libraries have played a leading role in improving the quality of life and enhancing the information literacy of local residents. Tianzhu No. 1 High School Library 天祝一中图书馆—which serves a large Tibetan and other minority populations—has gained a reputation for its oral history of local culture program. This program trains students to conduct interviews with folk artists and scholars and then post their audiovisual recordings on websites. Tongwei No. 1 High School Library 通渭一中图书馆 is known for providing health care information through both in-person workshops and online. Recently, it implemented a tutoring service aimed at teaching residents to use online resources. These programs have been successful and sustainable in part because of the sponsorship and funding of the U.S.-based Evergreen Education Foundation (EEF) 美国青树教育基金会. This report analyzes the results of these major initiatives, both of which do a great deal to reach out to rural residents, particularly farmers and the elderly.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.