ObjectiveTo investigate clinical efficacy of percutaneous nephroscope in treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). MethodsEighty-six patients with SAP in this hospital from August 2012 to November 2015 were selected, which were divided into percutaneous nephroscope treatment group (43 cases) and laparotomy treat-ment group (43 cases) according to the difference of therapy modality. The conventional drug therapy was performed for all of them. The postoperative recovery, content of serum C reactive protein (CRP) on day 14 after operation, and post-operative complications were observed in these two groups. Results① The abdominal pain relief time, postoperative bowel sounds recovery time, normal body temperature recovery time, and postoperative hospitalization time in the percu-taneous nephroscope treatment group were significantly shorter than those in the laparotomy treatment group (P<0.05). ② The contents of serum CRP in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group and in the laparotomy treatment group on day 14 after operation were significantly lower than those on day 1 before operation[(8.35±2.13) mg/L versus (31.44±3.45) mg/L, P<0.05; (16.42±2.44) mg/L versus (32.09±2.98) mg/L, P<0.05]. On day 14 after operation, the content of serum CRP in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group was significantly lower than that in the laparotomy treat-ment group[(8.35±2.13) mg/L versus (16.42±2.44) mg/L, P<0.05]. ③ The incidence rate of postoperative complications in the percutaneous nephroscope treatment group was significantly lower than that in the laparotomy treatment group[14.0% (6/43) versus 32.6% (14/43), P<0.05]. ConclusionPercutaneous nephroscope in treatment of patients with SAP is effect, it has advantages of shorter hospital stay and early recovery, which could reduce incidence of postoperative complications, and it's mechanism might be related to systemic inflammatory response.
ObjectiveTo assess the endorsement of the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals in animal experiments field and its incorporation into their editorial processes. MethodsChinese journals indexed by SCI, MEDLINE, CSCD or CSTPCD were included. The latest'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journals was downloaded and any text mentioning the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC was extracted. Subsequently, a self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the editor of each included journals. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results240 journals in animal experiments field from China were examined. A total of 240 questionnaires were issued, of which, 198 questionnaires were effective (response rate 82.5%). The results showed that all IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC and the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in editors of Chinese journals was only 13.1%. Only 10.1% of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And editors reported that they incorporated the two guidelines into their peer review (7.1%) and editorial processes (8.1%). ConclusionAt present, all Chinese journals'IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC. The majority of editors surveyed are not familiar with the content of the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And it needs to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them in order to improve the quality of animal experiment reports.