ObjectiveTo investigate the capability and demands of medical students of medical information retrieval, and to provide information for medical information literacy education.MethodsWe conducted an online questionnaire survey among medical students from 15th to 21st July, 2019, aiming to analyze basic characteristics of the subjects and their ways and capability to acquire medical information, and evaluated their demands and satisfaction about relevant courses.ResultsFour hundred and nine valid questionnaires were collected. The average age of the respondents was (21±3) years old. Among the respondents, 279 (68.2%) were female, 290 (70.9%) were undergraduates, and 187 (45.7%) majored in clinical medicine. The mostly accessed ways to obtain medical information were textbooks (87.8%) and search engines (84.4%). Among Chinese literature databases, the most commonly used was China National Knowledge Infrastructure (67.7%), followed by Wanfang (54.3%). As for English literature databases, the most commonly used was PubMed (66.0%), while the proportions of respondents who used other databases was less than 1/4. As for the problems when obtaining information, 84.8% of the respondents supposed that no access to some online databases was the main problem. Obtaining information from search engine scored the highest [(3.21±1.00) points, 5 points totally] when they were asked to self-evaluate their ability to obtain medical information by different methods. In terms of training demands, the need for courses about literature authenticity and accuracy evaluation was the highest [(4.05±1.07) points, 5 points totally]. The trainings were expected to be conducted within 1-2 years after enrollment (83.9%). Training through professional courses (86.8%) was the most welcomed training form, followed by courses on MOOC (51.3%), an online course platform. More than 50% of the respondents were satisfied with the current relevant courses and trainings.ConclusionBoth the students’ capability of medical information retrieval and the design of relevant trainings should be improved to better prepare the medical students for further clinical practice and scientific research.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and antiviral antibody therapy in the treatment of COVID-19. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and SinoMED databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine and antiviral antibody therapies for COVID-19 from inception to June 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, network meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 14.0 software. ResultsA total of 44 RCTs were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, for mortality rate, the rank of cumulative probability was: TCM+ standard care (SC) (100%)>convalescent plasma (CP)+SC (42%)>SC (8%). In terms of hospital stay time, the rank of cumulative probability was: TCM+SC (95.5%)>SC (31.4%)>CP+SC (23.2%). In terms of time to viral clearance, the rank of cumulative probability was: TCM+SC (97.4%)>SC (37.4%)>CP+SC (15.2%). In the aspect of mechanical ventilation rate, the rank of cumulative probability was: TCM+SC (98.9%)>CP+SC (42.9%)>SC (8.3%). In the aspect of adverse reactions/events, the rank of cumulative probability was: TCM+SC (99.9%)>SC (47.9%)>CP+SC (2.2%). ConclusionThe current evidence shows that TCM combined with SC is the most effective treatment in reducing mortality, shortening hospitalization time and viral negative conversion time, reducing mechanical ventilation rate, and the incidence of adverse reactions/events is low. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
Objective To conduct a scoping review on the clinical research evidence for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with traditional Chinese medicine, identify relevant problems in the literature, and provide ideas for the follow-up research. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Journal Full-text Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database were searched from inception to July 21st, 2022. The clinical research evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine was included, the data information was sorted out, and the results were descriptively analyzed. Results A total of 132 studies were included, including 53 randomized controlled trials, 17 non-randomized controlled trials, and 62 retrospective cohort studies, all of which were published between 2020 and 2022. The clinical studies were carried out in 19 provincial level regions, among which Hubei province had the largest number of studies (49.2%, 65/132). The sample sizes of the studies were mostly between 50 and 100 cases (43.2%, 57/132). Most of the studies had a treatment course of 0-14 days (50.0%, 66/132). The most compared intervention measures were traditional Chinese medicine + conventional western medicine treatment vs. conventional western medicine treatment, accounting for 75.0% (99/132) of the studies. The COVID-19 patients included in the studies were mainly mild and moderate. Outcome indicators included changes in symptoms/signs, laboratory indicators, CT indicators, clinical outcomes, safety indicators, functional scales, etc. The main adverse reactions/events in intervention/exposure groups were gastrointestinal reactions. Conclusions There has been a lot of clinical research evidence on the treatment of COVID-19 by traditional Chinese medicine. To provide strong evidence support for the treatment of COVID-19 by traditional Chinese medicine, more clinical trials with large samples and international collaboration are needed in the future.