Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool. Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7–75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5–22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6–67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9–64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1–55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1–83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3–53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5–29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics. Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common condition with a significant impact on the quality of life. Regenerative medicine maladies are intended to repair or replace damaged tissues and organs through different therapeutic mechanisms. Our aim was to study the effect of intra‐corporeal injection (ICI) of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) in ED patients. Thirty‐four patients’ erectile function was evaluated by filling up an abridged form of the international index of erectile function (IIEF‐5) before and after PRP therapy. ICI of PRP was done once per week for 2 months. All patients were prescribed PDE5Is for one month after PRP therapy. Penile haemodynamics was assessed using 20 µg of PGE1 before and 3 months after initiating PRP therapy. Interestingly, our study had shown that there was a statistically significant difference in the IIEF‐5 score after ICI of PRP (−5.5, ±5.2, p=<0.001). Furthermore, in multiple logistic regression model for PRP responsiveness, smoking and IIEF score before PRP were the only significant independent variables (p = .040, p = .023 respectively). PRP injection for ED patients may be a promising modality as well as baseline IIEF‐5, and smoking status can be used as predictors for a satisfactory response to PRP in such patients.