Background: The underrepresentation of scholarly works from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in academic literature is a documented concern, attributed partly to editorial biases. This trend, prevalent across various disciplines, has been less explored in the context of medical ethics journals. This study aimed to examine the composition of editorial board members (EBM) in high-impact medical ethics journals and to evaluate the extent of international diversity within these editorial teams. Methods: This study incorporated an analysis of 16 high-impact medical ethics journals. Information regarding the EBM of these journals was systematically gathered and categorized based on the World Bank’s country income classifications. An in-depth examination of the editorial board compositions was then conducted. Results: The study identified 669 EBM across the selected journals. A predominant 89.84% (601) of these members were from high-income countries (HICs), with upper-middle-income countries contributing 7.47% (50) and lower-middle-income countries 2.69% (18). No EBM were associated with low-income countries. A regional breakdown indicated that North America was the most represented area, accounting for 48.88% (327), followed by Europe & Central Asia (27.50%, 184), East Asia & Pacific (13.45%, 90), Latin America & Caribbean (4.63%, 31), Sub-Saharan Africa (4.19%, 28), Middle East & North Africa (0.75%, 5), and South Asia (0.60%, 4). In total, these EBMs hailed from 46 different countries, with the United States representing the largest proportion (43.80%, 293), followed by the United Kingdom (13.15%, 88), Australia (7.92%, 53), Germany (6.73%, 45), and Canada (5.08%, 34). Conclusions: There is a significant lack of international representation within the EBM of high-impact medical ethics journals. The majority of editors in this field are affiliated with HICs, leading to a severe underrepresentation of LMICs within the editorial boards.

Purpose: Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is considered the predominant cause of low back pain (LBP) and accounts for global disability and a substantial socioeconomic burden. Given the unsatisfactory outcomes of current treatment strategies, cartilage endplate-derived stem cells (CESCs) are increasingly used in intervertebral disc regeneration. However, comprehensive analyses on CESCs remain rare. Herein, we examined the biological functions and applications of CESCs in IDD. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify studies focused on CESCs. Relevant information from included studies was extracted. Descriptive statistics were performed. Correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship among Web of Science (WoS) citations, Dimensions, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Results: Twenty-six studies were included in this study. Most studies (n=20) isolated CESCs from humans, followed by rats (n=5) and rabbits (n=1). Twenty studies were performed in vitro, and the remaining six were implemented both in vivo and in vitro. The findings of this study provide insight into the biological properties of CESCs and clarify their potential application for intervertebral disc regeneration. There was a very high correlation between WoS and Dimensions citation count (p< 0.001, r=0.988). Conclusion: This study, for the first time, elaborates biological features of CESCs and analyzes their potential applications in regenerating intervertebral discs. CESCs may be promising candidates for protecting the intervertebral disc from degeneration and contributing to intervertebral disc regeneration.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has been a global pandemic. Researchers have made great efforts to investigate SARS-CoV-2. However, there are few studies analyzing the general situation of SARS-CoV-2 research at global level. This study aimed to characterize global scientific efforts based on SARS-CoV-2 publications. Methodology: SARS-CoV-2 -related publications were retrieved using Web of Science. The number of publications, citation, country, journal, study topic, total confirmed cases, and total deaths were analyzed. Results: A total of 441 publications were identified. China contributed the largest number of publications (198, 44.90%), followed by USA (51, 11.56%), Italy (28, 6.35%), Germany (19, 4.31%), and South Korea (13, 2.95%). Upper-middle-income economies (51.70%) produced the most SARS-CoV-2 publications, followed by high-income (45.12%), lower-middle-income (2.95%), and low-income economies (0.23%). The research output had a significant correlations with total confirmed cases (r = 0.666, p = 0.000) and total deaths (r = 0.610, p = 0.000). China had the highest total citations (1947), followed by USA (204), and Germany (54). China also had the highest average citations (9.83), followed by Netherlands (5.80), and Canada (5.43). The most popular journals were Journal of Medical Virology, Eurosurveillance, and Emerging Microbes and Infections. The most discussed topic was the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: Scientific research on SARS-CoV-2 is from worldwide researchers' efforts, with some countries and journals having special contributions. The countries with more total confirmed cases and total deaths tend to have more research output in the field of SARS-CoV-2. China was the most prolific country, and had the highest quality of publications on SARS-CoV-2.

Objective: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a key intervention for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). However, the body of meta-analytic evidence is fraught with conflicting findings, creating significant clinical uncertainty. This study was designed to harmonize the discordant evidence, identify the most methodologically robust meta-analysis, and formulate a clear, evidence-based recommendation for the clinical use of NPWT. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all pertinent meta-analyses. The methodological quality of each included review was rigorously assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was then employed to systematically select the most reliable and robust evidence. Results: Eight meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria, with AMSTAR scores ranging from 6 to 9. The formal application of the Jadad decision algorithm identified the meta-analysis by Deng et al as the definitive source of best available evidence. This meta-analysis demonstrated that NPWT significantly improved wound healing rates (risk ratio = 1.46) and decreased amputation rates (risk ratio = 0.69) relative to conventional therapy, while also shortening granulation tissue formation time without increasing adverse events. Conclusion: The highest-quality evidence, harmonized through this appraisal, confirms that NPWT is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy for DFUs. Its demonstrated ability to accelerate healing while reducing amputations provides a strong evidence base for consideration as a key component of standard clinical practice.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been utilized as adjunctive therapy in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, there is currently limited research available on the efficacy of PRP in arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Purpose: This study aimed to perform a cross-sectional analysis of overlapping meta-analyses comparing the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with and without PRP to assist clinicians in assessing the most reliable evidence and formulating treatment recommendations accordingly. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Under PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, comprehensive searches of meta-analyses were performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until June 1, 2024, and found 63 studies. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence instruments. Data extraction from the included meta-analyses was independently performed by 2 reviewers. The Jadad decision algorithm was employed to identify meta-analyses with the most robust evidence. Results: This study included 5 meta-analyses. These meta-analyses had AMSTAR scores ranging from 7 to 9, with a mean of 8. The most reliable evidence, assessed by the Jadad algorithm, included 8 randomized controlled trials and involved 566 patients. It showed that the short-term (≤12 months after surgery) retear rate and visual analog scale score were significantly lower in those with PRP than in those without PRP. The short-term Constant score, short-term University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and long-term (>12 months after surgery) UCLA score were significantly higher in the PRP group, especially in single-row fixation. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the most reliable evidence suggests that PRP injections can be recommended as adjunctive therapy in single-row repair for enhanced short-term outcomes. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are imperative to increase the strength of evidence.

Very low proportions of publications from low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) have been proved in multiple fields. Some researchers from these countries believe that there is a biased attitude of editors against their studies. Under-representation of editorial board members from LAMIC were revealed in many research fields. However, it has not been investigated in the field of foot and ankle surgery. The current study aimed to analyze the composition of the editorial board members in leading foot and ankle journals, and to provide the international representation of editorial boards in the field of foot and ankle surgery. Five leading journals in the field of foot and ankle surgery were included. The editorial board members were collected from the official websites of these journals. The countries of board members were classified based on World Bank. The board compositions of the journals were analyzed. In total, 229 editorial board members were identified. These editors were from 29 countries. The United States (29.69%) had the greatest number of editors, followed by the United Kingdom (20.52%), Australia (8.30%), Italy (6.11%), and Germany (5.68%). When the editors were classified by regions, 49.34% of board members were from Europe & Central Asia, followed by North America (31.44%), East Asia & Pacific (14.41%), Latin America & Caribbean (2.62%), and Middle East & North Africa (2.18%). No editors were from South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. A total of 217 editors (94.76%) were from high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries (3.06%), and lower-middle-income countries (2.18%). No members were from low-income countries. There is a lack of international representation on editorial boards of leading foot and ankle journals. Editorial board members in the field of foot and ankle surgery are largely composed by editors from high-income countries with sever under-representation of LAMIC.