Search

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the status and trends of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) during the time period 2010–2020 and explore their methodological characteristics. Then, based on the strengths and weaknesses in development, offer several recommendations for the quality improvement which will serve as a reference for the users and developers of CPG.Introduction: With the development of evidence-based medicine (EBM), the CPGs play an increasingly important role in healthcare decision-making both in China and worldwide.Inclusion criteria: The CPGs that have been used to help the health professionals in the healthcare decision-making were included.Methodology: The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 for the studies describing the general and methodological characteristics of Chinese CPGs. Comparisons of the methodological characteristics between the groups were conducted using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The M-K test was adopted to identify the monotonically increasing or decreasing trends of methodological characteristics over the timespan.Results: A total of 2,654 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved over the time span. From 2010 to 2020,the guidelines had differing characteristics and covered a wide range of subjects. In total, 2,318(87.34%) guidelines focused on Western Medicine. Eight (0.30%) had been developed for patient versions of guidelines, 10(0.38%) were tentative guidelines, and 16(0.60%) were rapid advice guidelines. Medical specialty societies (including their branches) (71.1%) were the main guideline makers. The most addressed diseases were neoplasms (14.43%). The target population is mainly adults (84.97%). The methodological quality of consensus-based (CB)-CPGs was obviously lower than evidence-based (EB)-CPGs. Except for the item, “recommendations were based on evidence of systematic reviews,” there were statistical differences in all other methodological items between the EB-CPGS and CB-CPGS (P < 0.01). Higher methodological quality has been observed in EB-CPGs. All the data relating to the methodological characteristics indicated that higher methodological quality was present in the guidelines using GRADE (P < 0.01).Conclusion: The quantity and quality of the guidelines developed in China have improved between 2010 and 2020. CB-CPGs have also paid attention to the methodology quality, but obviously, this is lower than that in the EB-CPGs.

IntroductionAcupuncture is used as an adjuvant therapy for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but available evidence for efficacy is limited so far. Growing studies suggest that resident gut microbiota contributes to the development and progression of AD. Meanwhile, acupuncture is reported to treat gastrointestinal and neurodegenerative disorders via the gut-brain axis. Therefore, our aim is to confirm the adjunctive therapeutic effects of acupuncture for AD, and explore the relationship between clinical efficacy and shifts of gut microbiota.Methods and analysisThis is a randomized, participant-masked, sham-controlled trial. One hundred and sixty participants with mild AD will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either active acupuncture or non-penetrating sham acupuncture (three times weekly for 14 weeks) added to donepezil treatment (5 mg per day for 28 weeks). The primary efficacy outcome is the change from baseline to week 28 in the Alzheimer’s disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog12). Secondary efficacy outcomes include other assessments of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Alzheimer’s disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Gut microbiota will be measured using 16S rRNA tag sequencing.DiscussionThis rigorous trial will provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of acupuncture as adjunctive treatment for mild AD, and identify the possible mechanisms of acupuncture from gut microbiota.Clinical Trial Registration[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05078944], ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT05078944]. Registered 15 October 2021

Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of patients 80 years or older compared with younger patients, and we then further investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy in individuals 80 years or older.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. The χ2 test was used to analyze the different clinicopathologic and demographic variables between 65- and 79-year and ≥80-year groups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank testing were used to compare colorectal cancer (CRC)–specific survival (CCSS) curves between different groups. Multivariate and univariate Cox proportional hazards models with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also used to assess CCSS and OS.Results: A total of 189,926 patients were included in our study. Compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, age 80 years or older was associated with 48.4% increased CRC-specific mortality (HR = 1.484, 95% CI = 1.453–1.516, P < 0.0001; using 65–79 years old as the reference). Moreover, not receiving chemotherapy was significantly associated with an increased risk of CRC-related death, independent of other prognostic factors (HR = 0.615, 95% CI = 0.589–0.643, P < 0.0001) in individuals 80 years or older.Conclusions: This large population-based study showed that older age was associated with worse oncologic outcomes compared to younger age. Chemotherapy could offer survival benefit for very old patients diagnosed with CRC, and we strongly believed that very old patients were undertreated in the present medical practices.