Formulation of Criterion for Clinical Application of Shuxuetong Injection by Clinical Pharmacists in Our Hospital Based on Evidence Quality Evaluation Method / 中国药房

OBJECTIVE： To provide reference for strengthening clinical application of key monitoring drugs and promoting rational drug use in clinic. METHODS： Based on evidence-based medicine， taking key monitoring drugs Shuxuetong injection as example， clinical evidence of domestic and foreign clinical studies were collected. The included literatures were graded according to the quality of GRADE evidence and recommended strength system. Evidence-based medicine evidence for the indications of Shuxuetong injection were evaluated， and criterion for clinical use of Shuxuetong injection was formulated in Huaihua First People’s Hospital （our hospital）. RESULTS： The main content of criterion for clinical application of Shuxuetong injection formulated by our hospital was that there was A-level evidence support for acute ischemic cerebral infarction， but it was weakly recommended and only used for adjuvant therapy； there was B-level evidence support for anticoagulation （for preventing DVT）， diabetic peripheral nerve lesion， but it was weakly recommended； there was only C-level or D-level evidence support for other indications， it was strongly recommendation against use. CONCLUSIONS： Clinical pharmacists formulate the criterion for clinical application of Shuxuetong injection by evidence quality evaluation method， provide reference for clinical application management of key monitoring drug and play an important effect on rational drug use in clinic.

Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Trolamine for Preventing and Treating Radiation Dermatitis and Quality Evaluation of GRADE Evidence / 中国药房

OBJECTIVE： To evaluate the effectiveness of trolamine for preventing and treating radiation dermatitis （RD） and evidence quality， and to provide reference for clinical use. METHODS： Retrieved from PubMed， Cochrane library， Embase， CNKI， Wanfang and VIP database， randomized controlled trials （RCTs） about trolamine （trial group） versus usual care （control group） for preventing and treating RD were collected. After data extraction， Cochrane bias risk assessment tool 5.0.2 was used to assess the bias risk， and Rev Man 5.3 statistical software was used to perform the Meta-analysis. GRADE evidence quality grading system was used to evaluate the evidence quality of outcome indexes. RESULTS： Seven RCTs were included， involving 782 patients. Results of Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical significance in total incidence of RD [OR＝0.50， 95％CI （0.23， 1.11）， P＝0.09]， and the incidence of grade Ⅰ RD [OR＝1.32， 95％CI（0.96，1.81）， P＝0.09]， grade Ⅱ RD [OR＝1.07， 95％CI（0.80，1.42）， P＝0.66]， grade Ⅲ RD [OR＝0.69， 95％CI（0.45，1.04）， P＝0.07] or grade Ⅳ RD [OR＝0.43， 95％CI（0.17，1.05）， P＝0.07] between 2 groups. Results of Grade evidence quality evaluation showed that total incidence of RD， and the incidence of grade Ⅱ RD and grade Ⅳ RD were recommended by moderate-level evidence in 2 groups， while the incidence of grade Ⅰ and grade Ⅲ RD were recommended by low-level evidence. CONCLUSIONS： Trolamine is not effective in preventing and treating RD， and can not reduce the incidence of RD.