Objective To systematically review the efficacy of preoperative administration of oral carbohydrates in patients undergoing elective hip replacement surgery. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about preoperative oral carbohydrate treatment in patients undergoing elective hip arthroplasty from inception to January, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 10 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the placebo group, the preoperative oral carbohydrate group had no significant differences in postoperative insulin resistance (SMD=5.14, 95%CI –1.05 to 11.33, P=0.10), length of hospital stay (MD=–0.26, 95%CI –1.11 to 0.58, P=0.54), rate of complications (OR=1.46, 95%CI 0.53 to 4.07, P=0.47), postoperative glucose and insulin level. Conclusion Current evidence shows that preoperative oral carbohydrate can not mediate postoperative insulin resistance. It also does not reduce length of hospital stay, postoperative glucose and insulin level. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify above conclusion.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy of multimodal nonpharmacological interventions in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods An electronically search was conducted in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases from inception to November 2017 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on multimodal nonpharmacological interventions for MCI. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 12 RCTs involving 1 359 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no statistical differences between two groups in MMSE scores (SMD=0.33, 95%CI–0.13 to 0.78, P=0.16). However, the MoCA scores (SMD=0.52, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.67, P<0.000 01) and ADAS-Cog scores (SMD=1.13, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.51, P<0.000 01) in the multimodal nonpharmacological interventions group were better than those in the control group. Additionally, multimodal nonpharmacological interventions produced significant effects on ADL (SMD=–0.64, 95%CI –0.83 to–0.45, P<0.000 01), QOL-AD (MD=3.65, 95%CI 1.03 to 6.27, P=0.006) and depression (SMD=–0.83, 95%CI –1.41 to–0.26, P=0.005). There were no statistical differences between two groups on conversion rate to Alzheimer's disease (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.06 to 1.26, P=0.10). Conclusions The current evidence shows that multimodal nonpharmacological interventions are feasible for patients with MCI as they have positive effects on overall cognitive abilities, daily living skills, and quality of life and depression. Nevertheless, due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify the conclusion.
With the development of evidence-based medicine, an increasing amount of clinical care experts are paying attention to recommendations in the guidelines and the application of guidelines in clinical nursing practice. The demand for clinical practice guidelines is becoming increasingly important. Based on characteristics of nursing, this paper focuses on primary steps in the formulation of nursing-clinical practice guideline, such as clinical problems, outcomes, nursing evidence retrieval and selection, evidence and recommendations classification, methods from evidence to recommendations, patients' preference and value, and provides suggestions for development of nursing-clinical practice guidelines.
Objective To explore the methodological characteristics of Chinese clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus based on usage of GRADE. MethodsCNKI, PubMed, WanFang Data databases, and Medlive.cn were electronically searched to collect Chinese clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus over the past 11 years from January 1st 2010 to December 31st 2020. Four reviewers independently extracted data according to the content of appraisal of guidelines quality evaluation tool AGREE Ⅱ. The clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus were divided into two groups based on whether GRADE was used or not. The changes and development of methodological quality in the past 11 years were explored between the two groups. ResultsIn recent years, the number of clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus which used the GRADE in China had increased annually. The practice guidelines/expert consensus which did not use GRADE had lower methodology quality (P<0.01). ConclusionsThe use of GRADE in clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus requires improvement, and mastering GRADE methodology can effectively improve the methodological quality of the clinical practice guidelines/expert consensus.
The formulation process of recommendations in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines was often complex and cumbersome. This paper described the evolution of levels of evidence and strength of recommendations in medical research and analyzed existing problems when making recommendations. We also summarized and introduced the method of formulating the final recommendation. At present, there isn’t a perfect and uniform method to guide the formulation of recommendations. But some organizations provided different content frameworks or auxiliary tools to guide formulation of recommendations. Developers of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines can learn from their experiences, combine with their own characteristics of guidelines such as specific target population and specific clinical situations, establish a rational method of recommendations formation.
ObjectiveTo compare the therapeutic effects of invasive-high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC) and invasive-non-invasive ventilation (NIV) sequential strategies on severe respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and explore the feasibility of HFNC after extubation from invasive ventilation for COPD patients with severe respiratory failure.MethodsFrom October 2017 to October 2019, COPD patients with type Ⅱ respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation were randomly assigned to a HFNC group and a NIV group at 1: 1 in intensive care unit (ICU), when pulmonary infection control window appeared after treatments. The patients in the HFNC group received HFNC, while the patients in the NIV group received NIV after extubation. The primary endpoint was treatment failure rate. The secondary endpoints were blood gas analysis and vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation, total respiratory support time after extubation, daily airway care interventions, comfort scores, and incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions, ICU length of stay, total length of stay and 28-day mortality after extubation.ResultsOne hundred and twelve patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and the NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 53 patients and 52 patients in the HFNC group and the NIV group were included in the analysis respectively. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.6%, which was lower than the 28.8% in the NIV group. The risk difference of the failure rate between the two groups was –6.2% (95%CI –22.47 - 10.43, P=0.509), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior effect of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of –38.4% (95%CI –62.5 - –3.6, P=0.043). One hour after extubation, the respiratory rate of both groups increased higher than the baseline level before extubation (P<0.05). 24 hours after extubation, the respiratory rate in the HFNC group decreased to the baseline level, but the respiratory rate in the NIV group was still higher than the baseline level, and the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group [(19.1±3.8) vs. (21.7±4.5) times per minute, P<0.05]. 48 hours after extubation, the respiratory rates in the two groups were not significantly different from their baseline levels. The average daily airway care intervention in the NIV group was 9 (5 - 12) times, which was significantly higher than the 5 (4 - 7) times in the HFNC group (P=0.006). The comfort score of the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NIV group (8.6±3.2 vs. 5.7±2.8, P= 0.022), while the incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (0 vs. 9.6%, P=0.027). There was no significant difference in dyspnea score, length of stay and 28-day mortality between the two groups.ConclusionsThe efficacy of invasive-HFNC sequential treatment on COPD with severe respiratory failure is not inferior to that of invasive-NIV sequential strategy. The two groups have similar treatment failure rates, and HFNC has better comfort and treatment tolerance.
Objective The ultimate goal of developing guidelines is for using them in clinical practice. In this study, an implementation evaluation tool was developed to promote the overall evaluation of guidelines and to improve their promotion and implementation. Methods The research group set up a team to formulate and establish a guideline implementation evaluation tool, through preliminary research, interviews, a systematic review of relevant literature, two expert consensus meetings and two Delphi expert consensus meetings to evaluate the guideline implementation tool. Experts were invited to give opinions and grades on the fields, items and overall implementation evaluation method of the tool. Results The evaluation tool for the implementation of guidelines included 5 fields, accessibility, communicability, performability, recognizability and applicability, with a total of 7 items. The scale-level CVIs in two rounds of Delphi expert consensus were 0.91 and 0.93. We collected opinions and suggestions and made some revisions and insertions without deleting any items based on the parameter that no items fulfilled the standard if mean <3.5, coefficient of variation >15% and I-CVI<0.78. Conclusion In this study, in order to provide a standard and method for the evaluation of guideline implementation, a guideline implementation evaluation tool has been developed and evaluated by clinically-related physicians and guideline formulation methodology experts. The guideline implementation evaluation tool presents satisfactory face and content validity. Empirical research is needed to verify the tool’s performance in evaluating guideline implementation.
ObjectiveTo develop the questionnaire and test its reliability for investigating route, prevention, and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staffs.MethodsThis questionnaire was development based on the COVID-19 relevant guidelines, official documents issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China, and published studies. The development group performed repeated discussions and drafted the first questionnaire, then performed expert consultation and revised the draft according to their suggestions. Eventually, some frontline medical staffs were invited to carry out pre-test investigation of the questionnaire and test its reliability.ResultsThe first draft included 48 items; 18 experts were invited in the first round questionnaire and 10 experts in the second round questionnaire. The positive coefficient of experts in these two rounds was both greater than 75%, and the authority coefficient of experts' opinions was greater than 0.70. The variation coefficient of these items was between 0.00 and 0.35, the coordination coefficient of experts was 0.193 (P<0.05). The experts of above two rounds put forward 14 suggestions for text modification or adjustment options of some items; after the development group held repeatedly discussions, a total of 8 items were performed secondary consultation and finally reached consensus. The final questionnaire included two domains of questionnaire before and after confirmed diagnosis. The domain "before confirmed diagnosis" covered 4 sections and 29 items involving infectious cause, plan and knowledge of prevention and control, and psychological symptoms. The domain "after confirmed diagnosis" covered 5 sections and 21 items, included symptoms, treatment, and psychological status after diagnosis; impact on the surrounding environment and people, and awareness of protection after infection. The pre-test results showed that the total items were considerably numerous, some items were difficult to understand, some laboratory results and treatment conditions were ambiguous, etc. After modification and re-testing, the test-re-test reliability of each domain was between 0.74 and 0.93, and the overall re-test reliability of the questionnaire content was 0.82.ConclusionsThis research has developed a questionnaire for investigating infection process, prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staff, and the items considered two domains prior to and after confirmed diagnosis. The reliability and practicability of the questionnaire are acceptable.