Objective To systematically evaluate the clinical effect and safety of Bifidobacterium tetravaccine tablets in the treatment of antibiotic associated diarrhea (ADD) in infants in China. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatment of AAD by Bifidobacterium tetravaccine in infants were searched by computer from China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, VIP and Wanfang Data from their inception to November 2016. Meta-analysis of the data was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software. Results Twelve RCTs were chosen, which included 1 761 infant patients. The Meta analysis showed that the effects of treatment of ADD were significantly superior to those of the control group [OR=5.74, 95%CI (4.14, 7.96),P<0.000 01]. Among the 12 RCTs, 8 had no adverse reactions, while the rest4 articles did not mention adverse reactions. Conclusions Based on the present clinical evidences, treatment of ADD by Bifidobacterium tetravaccine in infants is effective and safe. But due to the small number and different quality of RCTs, this conclusion still needs to be confirmed by large sample, multicenter, and high-quality clinical RCTs.
Objective To investigate the cognition degree and clinical use of new COPD classification system of 2011 GOLD in respiratory specialists, and further analyze the reasons of failing to clinical use. Methods Respiratory specialists from 42 hospitals in Chongqing were investigated through questionnaire survey. The questionnaire contains two parts. The first part contains nine questions about the knowledge of 2011 GOLD new COPD classification system and its clinical use. The second part contains six questions about the reasons of failing to clinical use of the COPD classification system. Results A total of 204 valid questionnaires were recovered. More than 90% respiratory specialists had understood the new COPD classification system with different degree, and believed it is suitable for clinical use. More than twothirds respiratory specialists knew well the ways about CAT and mMRC, but only 24% specialists were using these ways. The main reasons of failing to clinical use were as follows: 60% specialists believed the pulmonary function test can evaluate the COPD classification, and 66. 7% specialists were limited by short visit time. The cognition degree and clinical use of the new COPD classification systemin the specialists from third grade A class hospitals was better than those from the other hospitals. But the difference was not significant among specialists with different professional title.Conclusion Respiratory specialists in Chongqing knew well about the new COPD classification systemin 2011 GOLD, but did not use it widely in clinical works due to the complicated operation of the new COPD classification system.