Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Background Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. Methods We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. Results 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. Conclusion Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Kinesio taping is widely used in musculoskeletal conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of kinesio taping in musculoskeletal disorders compared to other interventions. Twelve electronic databases were used for systemic search and data relevant to pain and disability were extracted. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018087606). Meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of kinesio taping to other modalities of musculoskeletal disorders. As a result, 36 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Kinesio taping was found to provide an improvement of both pain and disability when applied to any region of the body. In the first five days of application, kinesio taping significantly reduced the pain in all body regions (SMD = −0.63, 95%CI: −0.87, −0.39). This was also noted after four-to-six weeks of application (SMD = −0.76, 95%CI: −1.07, −0.45). When kinesio taping was used for disability in low back pain patients, it significantly reduced the disability within five days of application (SMD = −0.70, 95%CI: −1.29, −0.11). Finally, kinesio taping has shown an improvement of the disability in all body regions after four-to-six weeks of application (SMD = −0.59, 95%CI: −0.96, −0.22). Our findings support kinesio taping as an adjuvant to other treatments for musculoskeletal disorders. Abbreviations KT = Kinesio taping; MSK = musculoskeletal; SD = standard deviation; CR = conventional rehabilitation; NDI = Neck Disability Index; NPS = Numerical Pain Scale; CTM = Cervical Thrust Manipulation; PIR = Post-isometric muscle relaxation; NPRS Numerical Pain Rating Scale; OA = osteoarthritis; ROM = Range of motion; VAS = visual analogue scale; VAS-W = visual analogue scale-worst pain; VAS-U = visual analogue scale-usual pain; VAS-R = visual analogue scale-resting pain; VAS-A = visual analogue scale-activity pain; VAS-N = visual analogue scale-night pain; NPDS = Neck Pain Disability Scale; QA = Quality assessment

Zika virus infection in humans has been linked to severe neurological sequels and foetal malformations. The rapidly evolving epidemics and serious complications made the frequent updates of Zika virus mandatory. Web search query has emerged as a low-cost real-time surveillance system to anticipate infectious diseases’ outbreaks. Hence, we developed a prediction model that could predict Zika-confirmed cases based on Zika search volume in Google Trends. We extracted weekly confirmed Zika cases of two epidemic countries, Brazil and Colombia. We got the weekly Zika search volume in the two countries from Google Trends. We used standard time-series regression (TSR) to predict the weekly confirmed Zika cases based on the Zika search volume (Zika query). The basis TSR model – using 1-week lag of Zika query and using 1-week lag of Zika cases as a control for autocorrelation – was the best for predicting Zika cases in Brazil and Colombia because it balanced the performance of the model and the advance time in the prediction. Our results showed that we could use Google search queries to predict Zika cases 1 week earlier before the outbreak. These findings are important to help healthcare authorities evaluate the outbreak and take necessary precautions.

In this cross-sectional study, we examined the impact of access to nature on mental health utilization in urban neighborhoods using Texas outpatient encounters data merged with NatureScore^TM (0–100; low to high nature levels) and US census data (household income, education, employment, poverty, and insurance coverage) at the zipcode level. Our sample size included 61 million outpatient encounters across 1169 zipcodes, with 63% women and 30% elderly. A total of 369,344 mental health encounters were identified, with anxiety/stress and depression encounters representing 68.3% and 23.6%, respectively. We found that neighborhoods with a NatureScore of 60+ had lower overall mental health utilization than those below 40 (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.38–0.69). This relationship persisted for depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety/stress and in neighborhoods with a NatureScore above 80 (p < 0.001). Compared to neighborhoods with a NatureScore below 40, those above 80 had significantly lower depression (aRR 0.68, 95%CI 0.49–0.95) and bipolar (aRR 0.59, 95%CI 0.36–0.99) health encounters after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors. This novel approach, utilizing NatureScore as a proxy for urban greenness, demonstrates the correlation between a higher NatureScore and reduced mental health utilization. Our findings highlight the importance of integrating nature into our healthcare strategies to promote well-being and mental health.