Researchers have made crucial advances in understanding the pathogenesis and therapeutics of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), improving our understanding of lung tumor biology and progression. Although the survival of NSCLC patients has improved due to chemoradiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, overall NSCLC recovery and survival rates remain low. Thus, there is an urgent need for the continued development of novel NSCLC drugs or combination therapies with less toxicity. Although the anticancer effectiveness of curcumin (Cur) and some Cur analogs has been reported in many studies, the results of clinical trials have been inconsistent. Therefore, in this review, we collected the latest related reports about the anti-NSCLC mechanisms of Cur, its analogs, and Cur in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents via the Pubmed database (accessed on 18 June 2022). Furthermore, we speculated on the interplay of Cur and various molecular targets relevant to NSCLC with discovery studio and collected clinical trials of Cur against NSCLC to clarify the role of Cur and its analogs in NSCLC treatment. Despite their challenges, Cur/Cur analogs may serve as promising therapeutic agents or adjuvants for lung carcinoma treatment.

Tic disorders (TDs) are common neuropsychiatric disorders in children. Typical antipsychotics, such as haloperidol and pimozide have been prescribed to control tic symptoms as first-line agents. However, adverse effects have led to the use of newer atypical antipsychotics. Aripiprazole is one of alternatives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for children with TDs. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and control studies evaluating aripiprazole for children with tic disorders were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Cochrane Central, four Chinese database and relevant reference lists. Quality assessment referred to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Twelve studies involving 935 participants were included. The general quality of included studies was poor. Only one study used placebo as a control and others used positive drug controls. Participants were aged between 4 and 18 years. The period of treatment ranged from 8 to 12 weeks. Seven studies (N = 600 patients) used the YGTSS scale as the outcome measurement, and there was no significant difference in reduction of the total YGTSS score between the aripiprazole and positive control groups (MD = −0.48, 95 % CI [−6.22, 5.26], P = 0.87, I2 = 87 %). Meta-analysis of four of the studies (N = 285 patients) that compared aripiprazole with haloperidol showed that there was no significant difference in reduction of the total YGTSS score (MD = 2.50, 95 % CI [−6.93, 11.92], P = 0.60, I2 = 88 %). Meta-analysis of two studies (N = 255 patients) that compared aripiprazole with tiapride showed that there was no significant difference in reduction of the total YGTSS score (MD = −3.15, 95 % CI [−11.38, 5.09], P = 0.45, I2 = 86 %). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11 studies. Drowsiness (5.1 %–58.1 %), increased appetite (3.2 %–25.8 %), nausea (2 %–18.8 %) and headache (2 %–16.1 %) were common AEs. In conclusion, aripiprazole appears to be a promising therapy for children with TDs. Further well-conducted RCTs are required to confirm this issue.

Background: Aripiprazole is widely used in the management of tic disorders (TDs), we aimed to assess the safety of aripiprazole for TDs in children and adolescents. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and 4 Chinese databases, from inception to February 2019. All types of studies evaluating the safety of aripiprazole for TDs were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale tool, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the CARE (Case Report) guidelines according to types of studies. Risk ratio (RR) and incidence rate with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to summarize the results. Results: A total 50 studies involving 2604 children met the inclusion criteria. The result of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that there was a significant difference between aripiprazole and haloperidol with respect to rate of somnolence (RR = 0.596, 95% CI: 0.394, 0.901), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR = 0.236, 95% CI: 0.111, 0.505), tremor (RR = 0.255, 95% CI: 0.114, 0.571), constipation (RR = 0.148, 95% CI: 0.040, 0.553), and dry mouth (RR = 0.141, 95% CI: 0.046, 0.425). There was a significant difference between aripiprazole and placebo in the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs) for somnolence (RR = 6.565, 95% CI: 1.270, 33.945). The meta-analysis of incidence of AEs related to aripiprazole for case series studies revealed that the incidence of sedation was 26.9% (95% CI: 16.3%, 44.4%), irritability 25% (95% CI: 9.4%, 66.6%), restlessness 31.3% (95% CI: 13%, 75.1%), nausea and vomiting 28.9% (95% CI: 21.1%, 39.5%), and weight gain 31.3% (95% CI: 10.7%, 91.3%). Conclusion: Aripiprazole was generally well tolerated in children and adolescents. Common AEs were somnolence, headache, sedation, nausea, and vomiting. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the safety of aripiprazole for children and adolescents with TDs.

Background: There is a lack of best evidence of intravenous compounding robots for hospital decision-makers. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of intravenous compounding robots. Methods: A comprehensive search of relevant professional health technology assessment websites and electronic databases was conducted from inception to February 3, 2022. Current studies related to intravenous compounding robots were included in this systematic review. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed quality. The results were reported by qualitative description because of heterogeneity in the characteristics of the data in the included studies. Results: Thirty-three studies were included. Effectiveness: The robots improved production efficiency compared with usual/manual preparation; however, the intravenous preparation process requires further optimization. Additionally, robots reduced the incidence of medicine residues, preparation errors, and preparation failures. The solution properties of intravenous admixture medicines were satisfactory, and the robots also contributed to error recognition. Safety: The robots reduced product pollution and environmental pollution, but vigilance is still required to ensure that pollution stays low. The robots also reduced the incidence of health damage to technicians. Economy: The robots reduced material costs in these studies; however, whether they can reduce labor costs remains unclear. Social suitability: Technicians had a high degree of satisfaction with the robots, but few relevant studies focused on this aspect. Conclusions: Intravenous compounding robots have certain advantages in terms of effectiveness, safety, economy, and social adaptability.

Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among children has not been established. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of such intervention. The literature search was performed from the inception to the May 31, 2016 in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane database. All randomized controlled trials that using lidocaine for propofol injection pain in children were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence of injection pain and the incidence of propofol injection pain in different degrees. The data were combined to calculate the relative ratio and relevant 95% confidence interval. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement. Data from the included 11 studies indicated that the incidence of injection pain was lower in lidocaine group than the incidence in saline control group and in propofol lipuro (medium- and long-chain triglycerides) group (pain occurrence: 22.1% in lidocaine vs 66.8% in saline, RR with 95% 0.34 [0.26, 0.43], I2 = 38%; 30.5% in lidocaine vs 46.9% in propofol lipuro, RR with 95% 0.68 [0.46, 1.00], I2 = 9%). There was no difference between lidocaine and ketamine/alfentanil both in reducing pain occurrence and in reducing pain severity (pain occurrence: 29.7% in lidocaine vs 25.8% in ketamine, RR with 95% 1.47 [0.16, 13.43], I2 = 94%; 31.0% in lidocaine vs 30.7% in alfentanil, RR with 95% 1.01 [0.69, 1.46], I2 = 11%). And the reported side effects revealed that the safety of lidocaine in pediatric patients was acceptable. Compared with ketamine and alfentanil, lidocaine would be served as one more effective treatment in consideration of its well-matched efficacy, acceptable accessibility, and reasonable safety. However, more high-quality evidences in pediatric patients are necessary.