Objective To summarize the role and implementation effect of risk management in Ophthalmic Day Surgery Center. Methods Since the establishment of Ophthalmic Day Surgery Center on October 8th, 2012, risk management was implemented in the aspects of hardware management, post setting, file management, operating process, service, etc., and the adverse events occurred in the period were analyzed to find out the defectiveness and hidden dangers in the working process, and then refined intervention measures were put forward and carried out. The surgical amount, occurrence of nosocomial infections and nursing adverse events, and patients satisfaction from October 8th, 2012 to June 30th, 2015 were analyzed. Results During this period, 52 073 ambulatory operations were completed, with no nosocomial infection and 2 cases of nursing adverse events. The patients satisfaction in 2013, 2014, and 2015 was 98.09%, 98.22%, and 99.85%, respectively. Conclusion The implementation of risk management in Ophthalmic Day Surgery Center can effectively reduce the occurrence of adverse events in nursing work, improve work efficiency, help to establish and improve the nursing security environment, improve the nurse-patient relationship, and improve patients satisfaction.
背景 通过确保对卫生服务使用者和其他特定领域卫生保健决策者关注的指标进行常规测量，核心指标集（core outcome set，COS）可以提高研究的相关性。到目前为止，已经形成了 200 多个 COS，但这些报告的透明度还不理想。如果 COS 的报告不够完整和透明，COS 研究将无法实现其目标。 方法与结果 鉴于这些问题，由经验丰富的 COS 制定者、方法学家、期刊编辑、COS 潜在用户（临床试验者、系统评价员和临床指南制定者）以及患者代表组成的一个国际性工作组，制定了核心指标集报告标准（Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting，COS-STAR）声明，作为 COS 研究报告的指南。其形成过程先后包括初始报告条目产生阶段、代表关键利益相关方群体的 200 名人员的两轮德尔菲问卷调查，最后是一个共识会议。COS-STAR 声明由一个包含 18 个条目的清单组成，这些条目是确保所有 COS 研究报告透明度和完整性的必要条目。条目清单重点规范了形成特定 COS 的研究报告需涉及的前言、方法、结果和讨论部分。COS-STAR 声明的一个局限性在于其形成过程中缺乏低、中收入国家的代表性意见。而 COS 对在这些国家和地区开展的研究具有同等的相关性，故今后该指南可能需要不断完善，以应对这些国家和地区 COS 形成的任何其他挑战。 结论 随着 COS 研究的不断开展，COS-STAR 声明将成为提高 COS 研究报告质量的有力工具，并使所有 COS 使用者受益。
The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) is a latest guide tool made by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) group. It can enhance the transparency and completeness of Core Outcome Set (COS) report. This paper introduces the generation process, report items and application of COS-STAR to provide reference for domestic similar researches.
Objective To evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, and to analyze changes. Methods We searched CNKI to collect RCTs published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine (CJITWM) in 2014. Reporting quality of RCTs was evaluated by using CONSORT 2010 checklist, the methodological quality and ethics requirements were also analyzed. The changes of quality was also analyzed by comparing with those of 2004. Results A total of 80 RCTs were included. The top three interventions were Chinese patent medicine, decoction, acupuncture. Items with high reporting rate (>80%) included abstract, participants, randomization sequences and informed consent. Items with reporting rate of 50% to 80% including introduction, interventions, harms and funding, and others were all less than 50%. Among them, the reporting quality of title, trial design, outcomes, sample size, type of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, outcomes and estimation, generalizability, interpretation, registration and protocol was less than 10%. Compared with those of 2004, the quality of reporting, methodology, and ethics has all increased. Significant progress was made in items of structured summary, background and objectives, collecting participants, adverse reactions, quality control standards of TCM interventions, diagnostic evaluation criteria of TCM, follow-up, funding, ethical approval and informed consent. But small progress was made in randomization, allocation concealment and implementation, sample size, blinding and ITT. There has been no participant flow. Conclusion The quality of reporting, methodology, and ethics of RCTs published inChinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine have made some progress, however, trial design, outcomes selection, estimation of sample size, randomization, blinding, registration and participant flow are still needed to be further improved.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Yangzhengxiaoji capsule combined with chemotherapy for malignant digestive tract tumor. Methods CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, SinoMed and The Cochrane Library databases were searched online to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Yangzhengxiaoji capsule combined with chemotherapy for malignant tumor of digestive tract from inception to November 20th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using ReMan 5.3 software. Resluts A total of 15 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the chemotherapy alone, Yangzhengxiaoji capsule combined with chemotherapy could significantly improve the disease control rate (RR=1.26, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.49, P<0.000 01), the clinical efficacy of TCM syndrome (RR=1.71, 95%CI 1.50 to 1.96,P<0.000 01), and the quality of life scores of patients (RR=1.44, 95%CI 1.13 to 1.82,P=0.003). The combination therapy could also improve the immune function of patients and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions. Conclusions Current evidence shows that chemotherapy combined with Yangzhengxiaoji capsule is superior to chemotherapy alone for disease control of malignant tumor of digestive tract, clinical efficacy of TCM syndrome, the quality of life, and improving immune function. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectivesTo investigate the status of clinical trial registrations (CTRs), ethical reviews (ERs) and informed consent forms (ICFs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were published in the top 20 journals included by Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), and evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs.MethodsWe selected top 20 high impact factor Chinese medical journals indexed by CSCD, the RCTs published between 2016 and 2017 were searched. The CTR, ER and ICFs for all RCTs were analyzed.ResultsA total of 395 RCTs were included for data analysis. Nineteen RCTs (4.8%) reported the information of registration. For the 4 traditional Chinese medicine journals, only 4 (1.9%) of 207 RCTs reported the registered information. For the 16 western medical journals, only 15 (8%) of 188 RCTs reported the registered information. There were 185 RCTs (46.8%) which reported the information of ethical review. Among them, 66 RCTs (31.9%) were published in traditional Chinese medical journals and 119 RCTs (63.3%) were published in western medical journals. There were 253 RCTs (64.1%) which reported the information of informed consent. Among them, 154 RCTs (74.4%) were published in Chinese medical journals and 199 RCTs (52.7%) were in western medical journals. In terms of methodology, approximately 299 RCTs (75.7%) reported the type of randomization where 60 RCTs (15.2%) reported the information of allocation concealment and 38 RCTs (59.6%) reported blinding.ConclusionsThe proportion of RCTs registration, ethical review and informed consent is still low and the methodological quality of the studies require to be improved. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the training of clinical trial methodology.