Search

ObjectivesTo analyze the effectiveness and quality of stroke clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years in order to guide future guideline developers to develop better guidelines.ParticipantsNo patient involvedMethodPubMed, China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wanfang, CNKI, and CPG-relevant websites were searched from January 2015 to December 2019 by two researchers independently. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality in terms of domains and items. Then, a subgroup analysis of the results was performed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresRIGHT checklist reporting rateResultsA total of 66 CPGs were included. Twice as many CPGs were published internationally as were published in China. More than half were updated. Most CPGs are published in journals, developed by societies or associations, and were evidence-based grading. The average reporting rate for all included CPGs was 47.6%. Basic information got the highest (71.7% ± 19.7%) reporting rate, while review and quality assurance got the lowest (22.0% ± 24.6%). Then, a cluster analysis between countries, publishing channels, and institutions was performed. There were no statistically significant differences in the reporting quality on the CPGs between publishing countries (China vs. international), publishing channels (journals vs. websites), and institutions (associations vs. non-associations).ConclusionsCurrent stroke CPGs reports are of low quality. We recommend that guideline developers improve the quality of reporting of key information and improve the management of conflicts of interest. We recommend that guideline developers consider the RIGHT checklist as an important tool for guideline development.Trial registration10.17605/OSF.IO/PBWUX.

The pursuit of mesoporous Fe-based nanoagents addresses the field of developing alternative Fe-bearing nanoagents for synergistic cancer therapy with the expectation that the use of an essential element may avoid the issues raised by the exogenous administration of other metal element-based nanoagents. Herein, we highlight the interface-engineered mesoporous

The real-time and differentiated visualization of the organelles is favorable for exploring the distribution and interaction. However, most visual probes emit monochromatic fluorescence and target a single organelle, which impedes the in-depth study of their interplay. To overcome this obstacle, we tactfully conceived a polarity-sensitive fluorescent

Objective Since the beginning of the COVID‐19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID‐19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID‐19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines. Methods We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID‐19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID‐19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID‐19 across the included guidelines. Results A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X‐rays, lung ultrasound, RT‐PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID‐19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID‐19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy. Conclusions The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID‐19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID‐19 are RT‐PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID‐19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, but there is so far no comprehensive analysis of all known symptoms of the disease. Our study aimed to present a comprehensive picture of the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 using an evidence map.We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library from their inception to March 16, 2021. We included systematic reviews reporting the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients. We followed the PRISMA guidelines, and the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two individuals independently. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR. We visually presented the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and their prevalence.A total of 102 systematic reviews were included, of which, 68 studies (66.7%) were of high quality, 19 studies (18.6%) of medium quality, and 15 studies (14.7%) of low quality. We identified a total of 74 symptoms including 17 symptoms of the respiratory system, 21 symptoms of the neurological system, 10 symptoms of the gastrointestinal system, 16 cutaneous symptoms, and 10 ocular symptoms. The most common symptoms were fever (67 studies, ranging 16.3%-91.0%, pooled prevalence: 64.6%, 95%CI, 61.3%-67.9%), cough (68 studies, ranging 30.0%-72.2%, pooled prevalence: 53.6%, 95%CI, 52.1%-55.1%), muscle soreness (56 studies, ranging 3.0%-44.0%, pooled prevalence: 18.7%, 95%CI, 16.3%-21.3%), and fatigue (52 studies, ranging 3.3%-58.5%, pooled prevalence: 29.4%, 95%CI, 27.5%-31.3%). The prevalence estimates for COVID-19 symptoms were generally lower in neonates, children and adolescents, and pregnant women than in the general populations.At least 74 different clinical manifestations are associated with COVID-19. Fever, cough, muscle soreness, and fatigue are the most common, but attention should also be paid to the rare symptoms that can help in the early diagnosis of the disease.

Background: Acute infectious diseases constitute the most prevalent public health emergency (PHE) in China. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has long been used in the treatment of acute infections, but the overall evidence of its benefit and harm has not been comprehensively and systematically evaluated.Methods: We searched CBM, CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, embase and preprint platforms to retrieve systematic reviews (SRs) on CHM for acute infectious. Participants with COVID-19, SARS, H1N1, tuberculosis, bacillary dysentery, mumps, herpangina, hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD), and other acute infectious diseases were included. Interventional group consisting of patients treated with CHM combined with Western medicine or CHM alone. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the retrieved studies. Information on interventions, control measures and outcomes of the included studies was extracted, and meta-analyses were qualitatively synthesized.Results: A total of 51 SRs and meta-analyses were eligible for this overview, including 19 for COVID-19, 11 for hand-foot-and-mouth disease, 8 for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 4 for tuberculosis, 3 for mumps, 2 for bacillary dysentery, 2 for H1N1 influenza and 2 for herpangina. Six systematic reviews were of high quality, all of which were on the use of CHM for COVID-19; 24 were of moderate quality; 10 were of low quality; and 11 were of very low quality. CHM appeared to have potential benefits in improving clinical symptoms and signs for most infections with an acceptable safety profile, and the clinical evidence of the benefits of CHM for acute respiratory infections such as COVID-19, SARS and H1N1 seems more sufficient than that for other acute infections.Conclusion: Overall, CHM, both decoction and Chinese patent medicine, used alone or in combination with conventional medicine may offer potential benefits to relieving symptoms of people with acute respiratory infections. Full reporting of disease typing, staging, and severity, and intervention details is further required for a better evidence translation to the responses for PHE. Future CHM research should focus mainly on the specific aspects of respiratory infections such as its single use for mild infections, and the adjunct administration for sever infections, and individual CHM prescriptions for well-selected outcomes should be prioritized.

Objective To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018. Study Design and Setting We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs. Results We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality. Conclusion The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.

Background Supportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases. Methods An umbrella review of supportive care for patient with respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. Results We included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults [odds ratio/relative risk (OR/RR) ranging from 0.71 to 1.28], but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases. Conclusions Our overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

BackgroundThe outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a massive impact on the whole world. Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the diagnosis of this novel pneumonia. This study aims to understand the role of CT for the diagnosis and the main imaging manifestations of patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis on studies about the use of chest CT for the diagnosis of COVID-19. We comprehensively searched databases and preprint servers on chest CT for patients with COVID-19 between 1 January 2020 and 31 March 2020. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of chest CT imaging. We also conducted subgroup analyses and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 104 studies with 5694 patients were included. Using RT-PCR results as reference, a meta-analysis based on 64 studies estimated the sensitivity of chest CT imaging in COVID-19 was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00). If case reports were excluded, the sensitivity in case series was 96% (95% CI, 0.93-0.99). The sensitivity of CT scan in confirmed patients under 18 years old was only 66% (95% CI, 0.11-1.00). The most common imaging manifestation was ground-glass opacities (GGO) which was found in 75% (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) of the patients. The pooled probability of bilateral involvement was 84% (95% CI, 0.81-0.88). The most commonly involved lobes were the right lower lobe (84%, 95% CI, 0.78-0.90) and left lower lobe (81%, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). The quality of evidence was low across all outcomes.ConclusionsIn conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that chest CT scan had a high sensitivity in diagnosis of patients with COVID-19. Therefore, CT can potentially be used to assist in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BackgroundSupportive treatment is an important and effective part of the management for patients with life-threatening diseases. This study aims to identify and evaluate the forms of supportive care for patients with respiratory diseases.MethodsAn umbrella review of supportive care for patient respiratory diseases was undertaken. We comprehensively searched the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data and CBM (SinoMed) from their inception to 31 March 2020, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to supportive treatments for patient with respiratory diseases including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. We assessed the methodological quality using the AMSTAR score and the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of each included systematic review and meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 18 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study. Most studies focused on the respiratory and circulatory support. Ten studies were of high methodological quality, five studies of medium quality, and three studies of low quality. According to four studies extracorporeal membrane oxygenation did not reduce mortality in adults (OR/RR ranging from 0.71 to 1.28), but two studies reported significantly lower mortality in patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than in the control group (OR/RR ranging from 0.38 to 0.73). Besides, monitoring of vital signs and increasing the number of medical staff may also reduce the mortality in patients with respiratory diseases.ConclusionsOur overview suggests that supportive care may reduce the mortality of patients with respiratory diseases to some extent. However, the quality of evidence for the primary outcomes in the included studies was low to moderate. Further systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to address the evidence gap regarding the supportive care for SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

Additional file 9: Table S1. Effect of tobacco and eggplant grafting on amino acids in fresh tobacco. Table S2. Effect of tobacco and eggplant grafting on amino acids in cured tobacco. Table S3. Effect of tobacco and eggplant grafting on the content of TSNAs in flue-cured tobacco.

Background Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed the association between egg consumption and human health, but the evidence is often conflicting. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search to find all systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the association between egg consumption and any type of health outcome. We used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the reviews, and GRADE to determine the quality of evidence. We visualized the results using a human anatomy diagram and evidence mapping. Results Our search revealed 29 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eight studies were of high methodological quality, 16 studies of medium quality, and five studies of low quality. We identified 34 primary outcomes from the included 29 reviews, which were combined into a total of 22 different health outcomes. Two of the primary outcomes were based on high-quality evidence, 18 on moderate-quality evidence, and 14 on low-quality evidence. Egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of two diseases and decreased risk of six outcomes. For ten outcomes, no significant association was found, and for four outcomes, different reviews came to conflicting conclusions. Conclusions The association between egg consumption and the risk of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and other related diseases has been studied in several meta-analyses. The evidence from different studies on the same topic was often conflicting, which can complicate the making of dietary recommendations.