Search

Background Esophagogastroduodenoscopy is very useful in diagnosing and treating upper gastrointestinal mucosal disorders, but too much foam and water in stomach decrease its diagnostic efficiency. Simethicone administration can help remove excessive foam. Aims To determine the optimal simethicone administration strategies in a comparative randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods Adult outpatients with indications for esophagogastroduodenoscopy were enrolled and randomly divided into group 1 (simethicone solution intake 20–30 min before procedure, n = 110), group 2 (simethicone solution intake 31–60 min before procedure, n = 92), and group 3 (simethicone solution intake > 60 min before procedure). Primary and secondary outcomes were procedure time and the patients’ satisfaction after the examination. All symptoms like abdominal pain and distension were recorded. Results No statistically significant differences were found on the patients’ demographic and clinical features and mean examination time (all P values > 0.05). The distribution of patients with different endoscopic and pathological diagnosis was comparable among three groups, respectively (P = 0.607; P = 0.289). However, the proportion of patients with Gastric Cleanness Grade A was most in group 2 (n = 73, 79.3%), and patient proportion with Gastric Cleanness Grade C was most found in group 1 (n = 72, 65.5%), which was greatly different (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference on the satisfaction scores [immediately 6 (3–8) vs. 6 (1–10) vs. 6 (1-9), P = 0.533; 2 h after 10 (8–10) vs. 10 (10–10) vs. 10 (8-10), P = 0.463]. Conclusion Simethicone solution intake 31–60 min before esophagogastroduodenoscopy can help obtain the best gastric cleanness, which is recommended in clinical practice (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03776916 on December 13, 2018).

To tackle transboundary air pollution in East Asia, international schemes for environmental cooperation have been introduced, including the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET), Long‐Range Transboundary Pollution of China, Japan and Korea (LTP), and the North‐East Asian Subregional Programme for Environmental Cooperation (NEASPEC). These programs, however, have not been successful in establishing robust regimes for effectively reducing transboundary air pollution in the region. This paper aims to examine the process of forming epistemic communities through these programs in East Asia. A bibliometric data on the scientific articles and reports produced were analyzed to examine the network structure of the scientific activities through EANET. The fragmentation of expert groups within EANET and among the major international schemes on air pollution in East Asia contributed to discouraging solid formation of an epistemic community covering air pollution comprehensively in the region. That makes it difficult to reach a consensus based on the current state of scientific knowledge on air pollution for providing effective advice and recommendations for the development of policies and regulations.

Black carbon mitigation has received increasing attention for its potential contribution to both climate change mitigation and air pollution control. Although different bottom-up models concerned with unit mitigation costs of various technologies allow the assessment of alternative policies for optimized cost-effectiveness, the lack of adequate data often forced many reluctant explicit and implicit assumptions that deviate away from actual situations of rural residential energy consumption in developing countries, where most black carbon emissions occur. To gauge the theory-practice gap in black carbon mitigation – the unit cost differences that lie between what is estimated in the theory and what is practically achieved on the ground – this study conducted an extensive field survey and analysis of nine mitigation technologies in rural China, covering both northern and southern regions with different residential energy consumption patterns. With a special focus on two temporal characteristics of those technologies – lifetimes and annual utilization rates, this study quantitatively measured the unit cost gaps and explain the technical as well as sociopolitical mechanisms behind. Structural and behavioral barriers, which have affected the technologies’ performance, are discussed together with policy implications to narrow those gaps.

Propofol sedation has been applied during esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures, but whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia should be administered at the same time has rarely been reported. Our study examined the role of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in sedated endoscopies in a randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial. A total of 626 patients who underwent sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomized into the experimental group (n = 313) or the control group (n = 313). The discomfort score, immediately and one day after the procedure, was not statistically significant [7.2 (5–9) vs. 7.5 (6–9), P = 0.210; 2.3 (0–3) vs. 2.6 (0–4), P = 0.095, respectively]. Two patients in the experimental group and three patients in the control group needed oral medication for pharyngeal discomfort (P = 0.354). The satisfaction score was 9.2 (8–10) in the experimental group and 8.9 (7–10) in the control group (P = 0.778). Lidocaine topical pharyngeal anesthesia in propofol-sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not further reduce the pharyngeal discomfort or improve the satisfaction. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03070379).