RESUMEN
OB JECTIVE To conduct overview of the systematic revi ew（SR）/meta-analysis for the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for hospitalized neconatal pain ， and to provide evidence-based reference for neonatal pain management. METHODS CNKI，CBM，Wanfang，VIP，PubMed，Embase，the Cochrane Library ，Web of Science ，CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched for SR/meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions for hospitalized neonatal pain. The search period was from Nov. 1st，2016-Nov. 1st，2021. After literature screening and data extraction ，AMSTAR 2 scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included literature ，and GRADE method was used to assess the evidence quality of the outcome of the include d literature . A su mmary analysis was then conducted. RESULTS Totally 36 outcome indexes of 7 SR/ meta-analysis were included. Five studies were of moderate quality，and two were very poor according to AMSTAR 2 scale. GRADE results showed that among 36 outcome indexes，there were 7 moderate-quality indexes （19.44％），low-quality indexes （61.11％），and 7 critically-low-quality indexes （19.44％）. The main reason for downgrading the quality of evidence was impr ecision of results （71.74％）. CONCLUSIONS Opioids c an significantly reduce t he pain score of mechanically ventilated neonates but may increase hypotension. Acetaminophen can significantly reduce pain scores during eye examinations and postoperative morphine consumption with no adverse reaction report. However ，its analgesic effect on procedural pain is less than glucose and sucrose. Lidocaine and prilocaine and tetracaine may relieve venipuncture and lumbar puncture pain but lidocaine and prilocaine may increase the risk of adverse reaction. Clonidine can reduce neonatal mechanical ventilation pain with no adverse reaction report. It is suggested that neonatal pediatricians should use analgesic drugs selectively based on clinical judgment and pain assessment results.
RESUMEN
Objective:To evaluate the reporting quality of diagnostic radiological imaging case reports published in Chinese science citation database (CSCD) imaging journals.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional survey. We searched CSCD to include imaging journals from 2021 to 2022, from which we retrieved diagnostic radiological imaging case reports published in 2020, and evaluated their reporting quality using case reports (CARE) reporting criteria.Results:A total of five imaging CSCD journals were searched, with 161 final diagnostic imaging case reports included. The median and interquartile range reporting rate of the included studies was 33.5% (7.5%, 93.3%), and patient perspective and informed consent were not reported in all studies. Items with reporting rates below 10% included 3a (abstract-introduction), 3c (abstract-diagnoses, therapeutic interventions, and outcomes), 8b (diagnostic challenges), and 8d (prognosis where applicable), with reporting rates of 2.5% (4/161), 0.6% (1/161), 0.6% (1/161), and 4.3% (7/161), respectively. Reporting rates for items between 10% and 50% included 3b (abstract-main symptoms and/or important clinical findings), 4 (introduction), 5c (medical, family, and psycho-social history), 7 (timeline), 10 (follow-up and outcomes), and 11a (a scientific discussion of the strengths and limitations), with reporting rates of 16.8% (27/161), 30.4% (49/161), 34.2% (55/161), 24.8% (40/161), 32.9% (53/161), and 31.7% (51/161), respectively; The reporting rates for item 1 (title), item 2 (keywords), item 5a (identified patient specific information), item 5b (primary concerns and symptoms of the patient), item 8a (diagnostic testing), and item 11c (the scientific rationale for any conclusions) were all over 90%. Moreover, the number of authors as well as the number of disciplines were not associated with the quality of diagnostic imaging case reports.Conclusions:The overall adherence to CARE items in radiographic diagnostic case reports published in the CSCD imaging journals is low. Editors of the imaging journals, radiologists and the researchers of the reporting standard should emphasize the guidelines for drafting case reports and improve the quality of reporting of case reports.
RESUMEN
Objective To evaluate the evidence and recommendations of the relevant clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of stroke published in the last five years. Methods The stroke and guideline-related key words and free words domestic computer retrieval platforms(China biomedical literature database,CNKI,and Yimaitong etc.),as well as foreign platforms(PubMed,NGC,GIN,etc.) were retrieved.The retrieval time limit ranged from January 2012 to May 2017.Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ)was used to assess the quality of the guidelines. Results A total of 9 490 documents were retrieved preliminarily and finally 16 articles were included. The average scoring rates of the 16 guidelines in the 6 fields of AGREE Ⅱ,including the scope and purpose,participants,rigor of the formulation,clarity of expression,applicability,and independence of the editors were 66.3%, 27.4%,23.0%,53.9%,18.8%,and 0%,respectively.The different guidelines all recommend that internal endarterectomy or carotid balloon dilatation and carotid artery stenting are used to extracranial carotid stenosis,while the treatment of vertebral artery stenting is recommended for extracranial vertebral artery stenosis.However,the intravascular interventional therapy is not recommended for intracranial arterial stenosis.The perioperative period of ischemic stroke intravascular intervention need to pay attention to the application of anti-platelet aggregation,anticoagulation,blood pressure,blood glucose,blood lipid management,and postoperative monitoring. For postoperative stent restenosis,especially after vertebral artery stenting,the guidelines recommend using drug-eluting stents,however,the dosage of heparin in intraoperative anticoagulation is still controversial.The intracranial aneurysm guidelines are more recommended for interventional therapy.The cerebral hemorrhage in different regions is recommended for different surgical procedures. Conclusions The guidelines in this field can reflect the key problems in clinical practice and keep up with the international concept.However,the quality of the methodology of the guidelines development needs to be improved. Some of them need to be updated and the recommendations should refer more evidence of the Chinese population.