Background: Ankle fusion is the primary treatment for advanced ankle arthritis. With the advancement of arthroscopy technology, ankle arthroscopy fusion has shown many advantages over traditional surgery. However, there are few related studies globally, and evidence-based medicine is needed to verify the reliability and feasibility of ankle arthroscopy fusion. Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis and open ankle arthrodesis. Methods: We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Wanfang Database, and VIP Database for published prospective or retrospective controlled studies of arthroscopic-assisted ankle fusion in the treatment of advanced ankle arthritis. The dates were limited from the construction of the library to June 30, 2019. Literature was included based on the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine. Literature retrieval, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers using the Cochrane 5.1 risk bias assessment tool. The methodological bias of the literature was evaluated, and a meta-analysis was using by RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of 18 studies and 1102 patients were included in the study, including 551 in the arthroscopic surgery group and 551 in the open surgery group. Arthroscopy-assisted surgery for advanced ankle arthritis was more effective than open surgery in terms of fusion rate (odd ratio[OR] = 3.32, 95% confidence interval[CI]:2.16, 5.10), fusion time (mean difference[MD] = −2.31, 95% CI:−4.63, −2.21), intraoperative blood loss (MD = −43.37, 95%CI: −48.49, −38.25), hospital stay (MD = −1.80, 95%CI: −2.28, −1.33), and visual analog scale score (MD = −1.75, 95%CI: −2.04, −1.46). In addition, rate of complications (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.21, 0.52) was superior to open ankle fusion ( P < .00001). Conclusion: Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis has more advantages than open ankle arthrodesis in improving the fusion rate and reducing complications, which is worthy of clinical application. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020195727.

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence and are likely to influence clinical decision-making. This study evaluated the reporting quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease and assessed the associated factors. Material and Methods The Pubmed database was searched for periodontal RCTs published in Science Citation Indexed (SCI) dental journals from 2010/01/01 to 2019/07/17. Information was extracted from the abstracts according to a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline checklist. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and the statistical associations were examined using the linear regression analysis ( P <0.05). Results This study retrieved 1715 articles and 249 of them were finally included. The average overall CONSORT score was 15.6 ± 3.4, which represented 40.9% (±0.6) of CONSORT criteria filling. The reporting rate of some items (trial design, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis, harms, registration) was less than 30%. The adequate reporting rate of some items (participants, randomization, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis or per protocol analysis) was no more than 4%. None of the abstracts reported funding. According to the multivariable linear regression results, number of authors ( P =0.030), word count ( P <0.001), continent ( P =0.003), structured format ( P <0.001), type of periodontal disease ( P <0.001) and international collaboration ( P =0.023) have a significant association with reporting quality. Conclusions The quality of RCT abstracts on drug therapy of periodontal disease in SCI dental journals remained suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve RCT abstracts reporting quality. Key words: Abstracts, RCT, drug therapy, periodontal disease, CONSORT, reporting quality assessment.

The objective of this review is to systematically evaluate the short-term efficacy of mud therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Randomized controlled trials, in which treatment of KOA is mud therapy, were included by systematically searching the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. According to inclusion criteria and searching method, 11 articles, containing a total of 1106 patients, were included in the study. Our results showed significant differences in visual analog scale pain score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (pain, stiffness, function). In addition, the heterogeneity of study included is lower (I2 < 25%). According to the results of this meta-analysis, mud therapy can effectively alleviate the pain and improve joint function for KOA.