Objective To evaluate the effect of standardized patient (SP) used in nursing fundamental. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi randomized controlled trials (q-RCTs) about comparing standardized patients with traditional teaching method in nursing fundamental were searched from the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, VIP and so on. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed according to the quality assessment scale developed by Smits PB, and the valid data were extracted and meta-analyzed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0.17 software. Results Five RCTs and one q-RCT involving 585 participants were included. The results of quality evaluation showed that the scores of five studies were more than or equaled 30. Descriptive analyses were only used because there was clinical heterogeneity between different studies. Comparing with traditional teaching method, SP teaching method in nursing fundamental improved the nursing procedure skills, the communication ability with patients and the ability of clinical judgment for nursing students. Conclusion The standardized patient teaching method is a prospective teaching mode. Because of the lack of RCTs about SP used in nursing fundamental, and the big difference of the teaching method and examine criteria in different studies, it is necessary to be verified in future by unified assessment methods and more researches with high quality.
ObjectivesTo assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines for transplantation in 2017. MethodsPubMed, NICE, NGC, NCCN, SIGN, CMA Infobase and GIN databases were searched online to collect guidelines for transplantation published in 2017. Guidelines were then assessed by using the AGREE Ⅱ instrument. ResultsA total of 10 guidelines were included. The result of assessments by the AGREE Ⅱ instrument showed a clear discrepancy among domains (P=0.001). Satisfactory scores were found in domains of " scope and purpose”, " clarity of presentation” and " overall score”, where the average scores were 90.8% (95%CI 83.5% to 98.1%), 82.5% (95%CI 72.7% to 92.3%) and 75.6% (95%CI 66.6% to 84.6%), respectively. Low scores were found in domains of " stakeholder involvement” and " applicability”, in which a score of 40.0% (95%CI 32.4% to 47.6%) and a score of 27.8% (95%CI 11.2% to 44.5%) were achieved, respectively. ConclusionsThere is a clear discrepancy among domains of global clinical practice guidelines for transplantation in 2017. Guidelines in this field should be improved in " stakeholder involvement” and " applicability”.