ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of 3D laparoscopic in the treatment of colorectal cancer.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched online to collect clinical trials of 3D laparoscopic in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to September 1st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 26 trials, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 22 cohort studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with 2D laparoscopic, 3D laparoscopic had shorter operative time (MD=–16.32, 95%CI –22.61 to –10.03, P<0.000 01), less amount of blood transfusion in operation (MD=–10.80, 95%CI –19.93 to –1.66, P=0.02), more lymph node dissection (MD=0.88, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.45, P=0.003), shorter recovery time of gastrointestinal function (MD=–0.18, 95%CI –0.31 to –0.04, P=0.01), lower incidence of postoperative complication (OR=0.63, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.89, P=0.009), and fewer days in hospital (MD=–0.84, 95%CI –1.40 to –0.28, P=0.003). Additionally, there was no significant difference in hospitalization costs (MD=–0.01, 95%CI –0.23 to 0.21, P=0.94).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that, compared with 2D laparoscopy, 3D laparoscopy assisted colorectal cancer surgery has obvious advantages such as less bleeding during operation, shorter operation time, lower incidence of complications after operation, shorter hospitalization time and no increase in hospitalization expenses. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
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.