ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of chemo-radiotherapy combined with hyperthermia (HCRT) for rectal cancer, and to provide evidence for clinical practice. MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2014), PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases from inception to July 2014. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HCRT for rectal cancer were collected. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 9 RCTs involving 663 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with the chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) group, the HCRT group were significant superior in complete response (OR=3.74, 95%CI 2.14 to 6.53), total effective rate (OR=4.23, 95%CI 2.69 to 6.66), 3-year survival rate (OR=4.48, 95%CI 1.81 to 11.06) and recurrence rate (OR=0.19, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.42). ②Compared with the radiotherapy (RT) group, the HCRT group was associated with significant improvement in complete response rate (OR=3.01, 95%CI 1.24 to 7.29). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, HCRT is superior to CRT or RT in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo provide a reference for developing search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal researches (ARs) in future, we investigated and analyzed the search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad. MethodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMbase, Ovid-BIOSIS previews, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to January 2015, to collect SRs/MAs of ARs that related to medicine. No limitation in species. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted basic characteristics, databases and other sources searched, characteristics of reported search strategy of included studies. ResultA total of 181 SRs/MAs of ARs were finally included. Less than 30% SRs/MAs searched more than three databases, 65.7% reported supplementary retrieval. 86.2% (156/181) SRs/MAs reported search terms, but only 12 reported search strategy; the search terms of 33 studies included specific name of animal, 27 studies used "animal/experimental model/", 20 studies used "limit to animal". 71.3% SRs/MAs reported specific time limitation of searching, 44.2% reported whether limited language, 23.8% of them limited language, and more of these limited to English. ConclusionAt present, there are still some problems in SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad when choice database, search terms and search strategy, so we advise that:1) It's necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; 2) Using specific animal's name and (or) "animal" as one of search terms, and using "limit to animal" according to characteristic of different databases; 3) The reporting of search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs should include search sources, time limitation, language limitation, limitation of inclusion type, search terms and complete search strategy, besides, reporting knowledge of reviewers is also necessary; 4) To improve transparency and clarity of SRs/MAs of ARs, some related journals should introduce "reporting complete search strategy" in their instruction for authors.
ObjectiveTo assess the endorsement of the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals in animal experiments field and its incorporation into their editorial processes. MethodsChinese journals indexed by SCI, MEDLINE, CSCD or CSTPCD were included. The latest'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journals was downloaded and any text mentioning the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC was extracted. Subsequently, a self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the editor of each included journals. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results240 journals in animal experiments field from China were examined. A total of 240 questionnaires were issued, of which, 198 questionnaires were effective (response rate 82.5%). The results showed that all IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC and the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in editors of Chinese journals was only 13.1%. Only 10.1% of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And editors reported that they incorporated the two guidelines into their peer review (7.1%) and editorial processes (8.1%). ConclusionAt present, all Chinese journals'IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC. The majority of editors surveyed are not familiar with the content of the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And it needs to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them in order to improve the quality of animal experiment reports.
ObjectiveTo investigate the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) of animal experiments in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, in order to improve the promotion of the two reporting guidelines in China. MethodsA self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and other medical reporting guidelines. SPSS 21.0 software was used for data analysis. ResultsA total of 329 questionnaires (40 were from teachers and 289 were from graduate students) were issued, of which, 287 questionnaires were effective. The results showed that the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city were 11.8% and 12.5%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between students and teachers in awareness rate (P=0.903). The survey approaches, the age, education, job, and the organization of the respondents were all not the influence factors of awareness rate (P>0.05). The respondents knew about the reporting guidelines mainly through the website (33.4%), related studies (21.2%) and academic reports (17.4%). ConclusionThe awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC is relative low in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, and it needed to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them.
MOOCs is a new education mode which by using the Internet to transmit the curriculums to the world to gratified the desire and the pursuit of people. In addition, it's not only an important way to accomplish convenience and mobility of study, but also a study way put emphasis on scenario and sharing. This paper will use the MOOCs and Flipped Classroom to design the teaching resources of evidence-based medicine. By combining the teaching content and characteristics of evidence-based medicine with the successful experience of the existing MOOCs, we make a teaching mode of the evidence-based medicine which is based on the students' autonomous learning and flipped classroom. And the practice of the MOOCs of evidence-based medicine will according to this mode in the future.
ObjectiveTo carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality and current situation of the systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) in pediatric field in China, as well as compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. MethodsSeven core Chinese pediatric journals were hand-searched. Two reviewers extracted data independently using predesigned data extraction form, crosschecked data, and discussed to solve discrepancy. The PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality respectively, and subgroup analysis was conducted by different total cites and different published time. SPSS 22.0 was used to for statistical analysis. Percentage was used to describe categorical data and Chi-square test was used to compare the difference among groups. ResultsA total of 157 SRs/MA were included. The proportion of SRs/MA related to interventions was the biggest (61.1%, 96 SRs/MA). (1) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions in the PRISMA checklist was better:the coincidence rate of twenty entries was above 50%; (2) The coincidence rate of observational SRs/MA in the MOOSE guidelines was not so good:the coincidence rate of 15 entries was less than 50%, even some of them were less than 20%. There were no significant difference between different total cites (≤5 vs. > 5) in PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. (3) The coincidence rate of SRs/MA related to interventions had been improved to some extent in most of items after the PRISMA guidelines published, and the differences were statistically significant respectively in No. 8, 19, 20, and 23 (P≤0.05). ConclusionsThe number of SRs/MA published in the pediatric journals in China is increasing generally, the coincidence rate of SRs/MAs related to interventions have been obviously improved after the PRISMA guidelines published, and it's better than the coincidence rate of observational SRs/MAs in MOOSE guidelines. In a word, we should pay more attention to the quality of SRs/MAs, but not just the number.
At present, there are many items/checklists used to assess the methodological quality of animal studies. Yet, no tool has been specifically designed for assessing internal validity of animal studies. This articles introduce and interprets SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies in detail for Chinese scholars to accurately assess the methodological quality of animal studies when they develop systematic reviews on animal studies, so as to provide references for scientific design and implementation of animal studies.
ObjectiveTo survey the important characteristics, such as the number of time cited, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA) of animal studies published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for SR/MA of animal studies published in Chinese journals from inception to March 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted basic characteristic and methodology characteristics of included studies. And then a descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 18 studies published in 13 different journals were included. 77.8% studies were not been cited, 44.4% did not report the types of including studies. Besides, there were some certain weaknesses in the methodological quality, for example, over 60% studies did not assess the qualities and publication bias of the including studies, 22.2% SRs/MAs only searched Chinese databases, over 80% studies did not provide flow chart etc. ConclusionThe number of SRs/MAs of animal studies published in Chinese journals is small and the number of times cited is low, and the methodological and reporting quality is poor. So, focusing on improving the quality of SRs/MAs is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
ObjectiveTo provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research. ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.