ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of nalmefene hydrochloride for acute cerebral infarction.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on nalmefene hydrochloride for acute cerebral infarction from inception to February 21st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 8 RCTs involving 1 038 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that, compared to the routine treatment group, the nalmefene hydrochloride group was significantly associated with an increased reduction in total effective rate (RR=1.14, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.23, P=0.003), GCS (MD=1.30, 95%CI 0.66 to 1.94, P<0.0001), patient satisfaction (RR=1.26, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.55, P=0.03), cerebral blood flow (MD=5.00, 95%CI 3.81 to 6.19, P<0.05), and cerebral blood volume (MD=0.28, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.32, P<0.05). It was also significantly associated with an reduction of NIHSS, CSS, level of inflammatory factors after treatment in 14 days, level of MMP-9 and mean transit time of contrast medium (P<0.05). However, no significant association was observed between two groups in level of inflammatory factors after treatment in 20 days. For safety outcomes, no significant association was found between two groups in mortality, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting.ConclusionsThe current evidence indicates that the nalmefene hydrochloride can be used to treat acute cerebral infarction based on routine treatment of acute cerebral infarction, and the safety is relatively good. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusion.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting status of conflict of interest and economic evidence in Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in 2017 and to provide implications for the guideline development in China.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data and Google Scholar were electronically searched to collect clinical practice guidelines published in 2017 from January 1st to December 31st, 2017. Two authors independently screened literature, extracted information of interest, such as conflict of interest disclosure and economic evidences, then, the analysis was performed by using the Microsoft Excel 20013 software.ResultsA total of 53 guidelines were included; in which, 14 (26.42%) disclosed conflict of interest, 10 (18.87%) stated sources of funding, and 6 (11.32%) mentioned economics evidence.ConclusionIn China, inadequate attention is addressed to the conflict of interest disclosure and economics evidence during the development of clinical practice guidelines. We propose the inclusion of conflict of interest and economics evidence disclosure in clinical practice guidelines, which will improve their objectivity, independence, and transparency.
ObjectiveTo provide the referencefor the guideline development and revision in China, we analyzed the composition of personnel who participated in developing Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)published in 2017. MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and Google scholar were electronically searched to collect Chinese CPGs published from January 1st to December 31st, 2017. Two researchers independently screened literatures, extracted data of interest, such as composition and distribution of personnel, and analyzed the composition of personnel with Microsoft excel 2013. ResultsA total of 54 guidelines were included, and the majority of which are for treatment. Among which, 49 were developed by the associations accounting for 90.7%. Twenty-four (44.4%) guidelines reported the geographical distribution and unit ownership of the guideline developers, such as hospitals, schools, institutions (academies, institutes, laboratories, nursing homes, etc.). Almost all of the guidelines were developed by the cooperative work of experts from multidisciplinary clinical setting, 15 (27.8%) of which mentioned the participation of the methodologist. Among which, 13 (24.1%) of them involved literature retrieval experts, 2 (3.7%) of them involved epidemiologists, 2 (3.7%) of them involved evidence-based medicine experts, 1 (1.9%) of them involved statistical expert. Three of which mentioned external peer review. None of them has systematic review team. ConclusionIn China, the CPG formulation/revision organization is still not considering the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, methodology researchers, and patients’ participation and external evaluation teams, which will affect the quality, practicability and maneuverability of CPG. We propose that multidisciplinary cooperation should be strengthened in the future while developing CPG, giving full consideration to the importance of medical personnel and the values of patients, and promoting the application of methodology.
Risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) are two common effect measures in prospective studies. When describing the magnitude of clinical effects in the original study and meta-analysis, they cannot be used interchangeably. Selecting an appropriate measures and interpreting them correctly is critical in clinical research. In this study, we summarized similarities and differences between risk and hazard, compared differences between RR and HR in estimation methods and clinical interpretation. The magnitude of RR and HR estimated from the same studies were compared, and two feasible formulas converting between RR and HR were presented for meta-analysis.
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.