ObjectiveTo systematically review studies on evaluating the quality evaluation index and the transformation application effect evaluation index of domestic related scientific and technological achievements, to analyze and identify the key elements of evaluating the " production-transformation” of scientific and technological achievements, and to provide the methodological support for the establishment of evaluation system for the transformation and application of domestic scientific and technological achievements.MethodsWe searched CNKI, WanFang Data, SinoMed and VIP databases from inception to December 2016. In addition, manual retrieval and tracing references were also used to collect researches. Two reviewers screened literatures, extracted data, and descriptive analysis was performed to assess the results.ResultsA total of 18 studies on the production quality of the technological achievements and 12 studies on the transformation and application effect of the technological achievements were included. The results of systematic reviews showed that: the evaluation of production quality of technological achievements were mainly established from the benefits, characteristics, value, effect and source, and input of technological achievements; the evaluation of transformation and application of technological achievements were mainly established from researching and development ability, transforming ability and transformation effect of technological achievements.ConclusionsThe evaluation of technological achievements covers 2 key links: the production quality, transformation and application effect of technological achievements that are mutually complementary to each other. At the same time, the value elements are found in the production quality, transformation and application of technological achievements, namely scientific value, discipline value, economic value and social value. Therefore it is necessary to establish the evaluation of production quality, transformation and application effect of technological achievements based on the value.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the risk factors associated with prediabetes, and to provide reference for prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus and health education.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect case-control studies on the risk factors associated with prediabetes from inception to February 20th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 13 studies involving 49 168 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: drinking (OR=1.31, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.65, P=0.02), hypertension (OR=1.75, 95%CI 1.11 to 2.76, P=0.02), abdominal obesity (OR=1.26, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.42, P=0.000 1), and waist to hip ratio (OR=1.77, 95%CI 1.27 to 2.45, P=0.000 6) might be the risk factors for prediabetes. However, dyslipidemia, smoking, physical activity, family history of diabetes, body mass index and waist circumference might not be risk factors for prediabetes.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that drinking, hypertension, abdominal obesity and waist-hip ratio may be the influencing factors of pre-diabetes, while other related risk factors are required to be further studied. 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.