ObjectiveTo construct a structural equation model of the mechanism of the role of medical humanities literacy in job competency and to conduct empirical analysis to verify the supporting role of medical humanities literacy in cultivating job competency. MethodsLiterature research was conducted to select the initial indicator system for medical humanities literacy and job competency, and then a conceptual model was constructed. Questionnaire data from four hospitals in Chengdu were collected. Through exploratory factor analysis, an indicator system for medical humanities literacy and job competency more suitable for the research population was obtained and the conceptual model was adjusted. Finally, the positive mechanism of medical humanities literacy on job competency was verified using confirmatory factor analysis (structural equation model). ResultsThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the overall questionnaire involved in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses was greater than 0.9, and the KMO values of the questionnaire were greater than 0.8, with a Bartlett's sphericity test P value less than 0.01, indicating good reliability and validity of the questionnaire. The model fit of the structural equation model met the requirements, with a chi-square degree of freedom ratio (CMIN/df) of 2.768, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.077, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.891, normalized fit index (NFI) of 0.840, and incremental fit index (IFI) of 0.891. ConclusionThe improvement of individual characteristics in job competency is mainly influenced by medical humanities knowledge and spirit. The improvement of cognitive characteristics in job competency is mainly influenced by medical humanities knowledge and ability. The improvement of achievement characteristics in job competency is mainly influenced by medical humanities ability and spirit. The improvement of management characteristics in job competency is mainly influenced by medical humanities spirit.
ObjectiveTo develop a transparency evaluation tool 2.0 of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) oriented by public trust. MethodsThe Delphi method was employed to score and select the importance and operability of evaluation indicators. The analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the weights of the indicators. And the final evaluation indicator system was determined through expert consensus meeting. ResultsIt constructed two first-level indicators including conflict of interest and formulation process, and six second-level indicators, including guideline developers, reviewers, protocol and registration, evidence production, recommendation formation, and external review. Based on the second-level indicators, a total of 21 third-level indicators were constructed from the perspectives of disclosure and management. The logical structure of the tool is rigorous and harmonious. ConclusionThe CPGs transparency assessment tool 2.0 developed in this study provides measurement standards and an evaluation framework for assessing transparency in CPGs.
ObjectiveTo understand the guideline citation of papers published by West China Hospital of Sichuan University, and to provide references for evaluating quality of papers. MethodsWe searched Web of Science core collection database to identify the published papers with the first author's primary affiliation at West China Hospital of Sichuan University until December 31st, 2022. Two reviewers independently performed the screening process and identified eligible papers. Afterward, we extracted the data from the selected papers, obtained their citation papers, and then separately constructed two databases, the West China Paper Database and its Citation Database. The differences in guideline citation among different types of papers and different levels of papers were analyzed using the χ2 test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. ResultsA total of 22 681 papers and 252 336 citations were included, of which 18 026 (79.5) articles, 2 773 (12.2) systematic reviews and 1 882 (8.3) reviews. The rates of article, systematic review and review were 2.6%, 15.8% and 2.2%, respectively. There were significant differences in three types (P<0.001). The citation rates of papers among the top 10 disciplines were different apparently: the highest citation rate was 13.9%, while the lowest citation rate was 2.6%. The guideline citation among different levels of papers showed no significant difference, but Q1 papers were more likely to be cited by Q1 guidelines (P<0.05). ConclusionPapers cited by guidelines are unevenly distributed across their article types and subject areas. High-quality papers are more likely to be cited by high-quality guidelines. Therefore, the citation of papers by guidelines can be considered as one of the indicators to evaluate the quality of papers.
The widespread application of composite endpoints in clinical research has afforded researchers a more comprehensive perspective, enabling a deeper understanding of intricate medical issues. Simultaneously, it effectively enhances the efficiency and efficacy of studies, thereby reducing the overall economic costs of research. A profound comprehension of the strengths and limitations of composite endpoints is crucial for their correct application and the accurate interpretation of results. This paper aims to introduce the recent advancements in the application of composite endpoints in clinical trials, discussing their advantages and limitations, and providing practical recommendations for their use. The intention is to offer guidance to researchers in understanding and managing composite endpoints effectively.