ObjectiveTo study the development of methods assessing donor liver viability in liver transplantation.MethodsThe literature in the recent years on the methods of assessing donor liver viability was reviewed.ResultsFrom donor liver morphology to function,there have being developed many methods which assess donor liver viability,including:①donor liver appearance; ②intraoperative biopsies; ③donor liver microcirculation; ④portal pressure; ⑤enzymes levels in liver; ⑥lidocainemetabolizing activity; ⑦energy metabolism of donor liver; ⑧fat content in donor liver.ConclusionThere are many methods to assess the viability of donor liver. Each has its supericrity and defect respectively. Intraoperative biopsies, 31Pmagnetic resonance spectroscopy and portal pressure have more importance in clinical application.
In the process of formation of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, experts have many difficult problems of lack of transparency and high subjectivity in making final decisions, such as incomplete comprehensive consideration of dimensions and great heterogeneity in the evaluation of importance between dimensions, etc. As a decision-making tool, multi-criterion decision analysis improves the decision-making level of recommendation by adding the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. By analyzing the challenges facing the formation of recommendations, this paper introduces the decision assistance of multi-criterion decision, and analyzes and summarizes the advantages and methods of the application of multi-criterion decision, so as to provide reference and guidance for guide makers to solve the difficulties in the formation of recommendations.
Umbrella review is a research method that comprehensively analyzes the systematic reviews and meta-analysis of a research question. In recent years, the research methods of umbrella review have been widely used, but the quality of umbrella review is uneven. Therefore, this paper focuses on the production methods and existing challenges of umbrella review, in order to provide references for domestic researchers to make umbrella review.
Rational drug use is a global concern. As one of the highest risk groups for drug use, children's rational drug use has always been concerned. Based on the previous research results of the research group, we developed evaluation indicator systems for assessing rational drug use to treat community-acquired pneumonia and primary nephrotic syndrome in children and proton pump inhibitors in pediatric intensive care units and finished empirical research. This study further summarizes and expounds the construction ideas of rational drug use evaluation indicators for children based on diseases or drugs, and provides a reference for constructing children's rational drug use evaluation indicators.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the current status and trend of methodological quality of multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke treatments in Chinese Mainland.MethodsMulti-center RCTs of stroke treatments conducted in Chinese Mainland published in Chinese or English language from January 2000 to December 2019 were retrieved from seven databases including PubMed, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Embase, China Biology Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, and Wanfang Database. The basic information was collected. Methodological items were referred to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. The definitions of Wade were used to assess the outcome measure.ResultsA total of 90 multi-center RCTs were included, of which 39 were published from 2000 to 2009, and 51 were published from 2010 to 2019. The total number of trials published from 2010 to 2019 was 1.31 times of that published from 2000 to 2009. The research subjects were ischemic stroke patients in 58.9% (53/90) of the RCTs, intracerebral hemorrhage patients in 14.4% (13/90) of the RCTs, and ischemic stroke patients as well as hemorrhagic stroke patients in 26.7% (24/90) of the RCTs. There were 55.6% (50/90) drug trials, and 44.4% (40/90) non-drug trials. There were statistically significant differences in the loss of visit report (P=0.005), primary and secondary outcome indicators report (P=0.027), and adverse reaction report (P=0.007) between the two periods; there was no statistically significant difference in reported adequate randomized methods (P=0.341), allocation concealment (P=0.611), blindness (P=0.551), used intentionality analysis (P=0.573), or follow-up time (P=0.061) between the two periods.ConclusionIn the past 20 years in Chinese Mainland, the quality of stroke treatment RCTs improves slowly, and more attention should be paid to develop the RCTs of true randomization, blinding, and better patient outcome measures.
Objectives To explore the quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), PubMed, EMbase, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBMdisc), VIP Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from establishment to February 2007). We also checked the reference lists of included studies. The quality of the reporting of RCTs was assessed using the 22-item checklist of the CONSORT Statement and other self-established criteria. Results Thirty-eight RCTs were included. The word “randomization” was not present in any of the trials, and only 17 reports used a structured abstract. All trials did not report the scientific background and the rational for the trial, the estimation of the necessary sample size, the methods of allocation concealment and blinding, participant flow chart, ITT analysis, and ancillary analyses. Some authors misunderstood the diagnostic criteria and inclusion criteria, some selected inappropriate control interventions, and some did not clearly describe their statistical methods or used incorrect methods. All 38 trials reported positive outcomes, few reported adverse effects. No report included a general interpretation of the new trial’s results in the context of current evidence in their discussion section, and none mentioned the limitations of the study, the clinical and research implications or the external validity of the trial findings. Conclusion The overall reporting quality of RCTs of TCM for CFS is poor. Defects are found in each section of the reports. Researchers and journal editors should learn and use the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine—especially the use of a transparent prospective clinical trial register and the CONSORT Statement—to improve the design, conduct and report TCM trials.
Health technological innovation has helped to improve health care delivery and patient outcomes. However, the proliferation of health care technology has accompanied burgeoning health care costs and evoked social, ethical, legal, and political concerns. Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of properties, effects and/or other impacts of health care technology. The main purpose of HTA is to inform persons of technology-related policy making in health care. There is great variation in the scope, selection of methods and level of detail in the practice of HTA. This paper will introduce the basic concepts and methods of HTA in order to help those who are interested in conducting HTA.
In recent years, the application of qualitative evidence synthesis results in health and social care policy has increased, and assessment of the limitations of qualitative research methodologies is critical in ensuring the credibility of qualitative evidence synthesis results. However, currently commonly used assessment tools are not designed specifically for Cochrane systematic reviews or qualitative evidence synthesis, and most lack evidence-based development background. To address this gap, the Cochrane qualitative methodological limitations tool (CAMELOT) was created to provide authors with a standardized tool specifically designed to assess the limitations of qualitative research methodologies. Based on the operation guide of evidence-based evaluation tool and Delphi consensus survey method, this paper introduces the development process of CAMELOT and expounds its field contents in detail.
As precision medicine continues to gain momentum, the number of predictive model studies is increasing. However, the quality of the methodology and reporting varies greatly, which limits the promotion and application of these models in clinical practice. Systematic reviews of prediction models draw conclusions by summarizing and evaluating the performance of such models in different settings and populations, thus promoting their application in practice. Although the number of systematic reviews of predictive model studies has increased in recent years, the methods used are still not standardized and the quality varies greatly. In this paper, we combine the latest advances in methodologies both domestically and abroad, and summarize the production methods and processes of a systematic review of prediction models. The aim of this study is to provide references for domestic scholars to produce systematic reviews of prediction models.