Time filter

Source Type

Zhang F.-W.,The First Clinical Medical School | Zhang F.-W.,Evidence Based Medicine Center | Zhang F.-W.,Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province | Zhou Z.-Y.,Lanzhou University | And 6 more authors.
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention | Year: 2014

Background and Aim: Laparoscopic and open rectum surgery for rectal cancer remains controversial. This systematic review compared the short-term and long-term efficiency and complications associated with laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge and the China Biology Medicine Database to identify potential randomized controlled trials from their inception to March 31, 2014 without language restriction. Additional articles were identified from searching bibliographies of retrieved articles. Two reviewers independently assessed the full-text articles according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methodological quality of included trials. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials involving 3,045 participants (laparoscopic group, 1,804 cases; open group, 1,241 cases) were reviewed. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, earlier return of bowel movement and reduced length of hospital stay as compared to open surgery, although with increased operative time. It also showed an obvious advantage for minimizing late complications of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. Importantly, there were no significant differences in other postoperative complications, oncological clearance, 3-year and 5-year or 10 year recurrence and survival rates between two procedures. Conclusions: On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that laparoscopic surgery has advantages of earlier postoperative recovery, less blood loss and lower rates of adhesion-related bowel obstruction. In addition, oncological outcome is comparable after laparoscopic and open resection for rectal cancer.

Ma B.,Lanzhou University | Ma B.,Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province | Ke F.-Y.,Lanzhou University | Zheng E.-L.,Lanzhou University | And 3 more authors.
Acupuncture in Medicine | Year: 2016

Background: We aimed to assess the endorsement of the Consolidation Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement by Chinese journals of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and its incorporation into their editorial processes. Methods: PubMed, Embase and major Chinese databases were searched to identify journals of TCM from China for inclusion. The latest 'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journal was obtained and any text mentioning CONSORT or CONSORT extension papers was extracted. Subsequently, the editor of each of the included journals was surveyed about their journal's endorsement of the CONSORT recommendations and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results: Sixty-three journals of TCM from China were examined. Of these, only three (5%) and one (2%) of the 63 journals mentioned the CONSORT statement and extension papers, respectively, in their IFA. Fifty-four of 63 (86%) of surveyed journals responded, with the majority of respondents being editors. Only 20% (11/54) of the respondents reported that they had any knowledge of the CONSORT statement. Only 6% (3/54) of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement or that they incorporated it into their peer review and editorial processes. Conclusions: TCM journals in China endorsing the CONSORT statement constituted a small percentage of the total. The majority of editors surveyed were not familiar with the content of the CONSORT statement and extension papers. We strongly recommend that the China Periodicals Association issue a policy to promote the endorsement of the CONSORT statement and conduct relevant training for journal editors in China. © 2016, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Wang J.-C.,Lanzhou University | Tian J.-H.,Lanzhou University | Ge L.,Lanzhou University | Gan Y.-H.,Lanzhou University | And 2 more authors.
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention | Year: 2014

Background: Few studies have directly compared clinical efficacy and safety among Chinese herb injections (CHIs) for gastric cancer (GC). The present study aimed to compare CHIs combined with FOLFOX regimens for GC to show which provides the best CHIs results. Materials and Methods: 9 electronic databases and 6 gray literature databases were comprehensive searched in April 20, 2013. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently selected and assessed the included trials. The risk of bias tool described in the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0 and CONSORT statement were used to assess the quality of the trials. All calculations and graphs were performed and produced using ADDIS 1.16.5 software. Results: A total of 541 records were searched and 38 RCTs met the inclusion criteria (2,761 participants), involving 10 CHIs. The results of network meta-analysis showed that compared with FOLFOX alone, combinations with Kanglaite, Astragalus polysaccharides, Cinobufacini, or Yadanziyouru injections could furthest strengthen ORR, improve the quality of life, reduce nausea and vomiting, and reduce the incidence of leukopenia (III-IV). Conclusions: Kanglaite injection, Astragalus polysaccharides injection, Yadanziyouru injection were superior to other CHIs in clinical efficacy and safety for GC. The conclusions now need to be confirmed by large sample size direct head-to-head studies.

Shi C.,Lanzhou University | Shi C.,Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province | Tian J.,Lanzhou University | Tian J.,Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province | And 7 more authors.
BMJ Open | Year: 2014

Objectives: Considering equity into guidelines presents methodological challenges. This study aims to qualitatively synthesise the methods for incorporating equity in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Setting: Content analysis of methodological publications. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Methodological publications were included if they provided checklists/frameworks on when, how and to what extent equity should be incorporated in CPGs. Data sources: We electronically searched MEDLINE, retrieved references, and browsed guideline development organisation websites from inception to January 2013. After study selection by two authors, general characteristics and checklists items/framework components from included studies were extracted. Based on the questions or items from checklists/ frameworks (unit of analysis), content analysis was conducted to identify themes and questions/items were grouped into these themes. Primary outcomes: The primary outcomes were methodological themes and processes on how to address equity issues in guideline development. Results: 8 studies with 10 publications were included from 3405 citations. In total, a list of 87 questions/ items was generated from 17 checklists/frameworks. After content analysis, questions were grouped into eight themes ('scoping questions', ' searching relevant evidence', 'appraising evidence and recommendations', 'formulating recommendations', 'monitoring implementation', 'providing a flow chart to include equity in CPGs', and 'others: reporting of guidelines and comments from stakeholders' for CPG developers and 'assessing the quality of CPGs' for CPG users). Four included studies covered more than five of these themes. We also summarised the process of guideline development based on the themes mentioned above. Conclusions: For disadvantaged population-specific CPGs, eight important methodological issues identified in this review should be considered when including equity in CPGs under the guidance of a scientific guideline development manual. © 2014, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Li J.,Lanzhou University | Li J.,Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province | Li J.,Chinese Academy of Sciences | Gao W.,CAS Institute of Biophysics | And 9 more authors.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | Year: 2016

Objectives: To evaluate the quality of reporting of single-patient (N-of-1) trials published in the medical literature based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT) statement and to examine factors that influence reporting quality in these trials. Study Design and Setting: Through a search of 10 electronic databases, we identified N-of-1 trials in clinical medicine published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2013. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility and independently extracted data. Quality assessment was performed using the CENT statement. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: We identified 112 eligible N-of-1 trials published in 87 journals and involving a total of 2,278 patients. Overall, kappa agreement between the two evaluators for compliance with CENT criteria was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 0.82). Trials assessed pharmacology and therapeutics (87%), behavior (11%), or diagnosis (2%). Although 87% of articles described the trial design (including the planned number of subjects and length of treatment period), the median percentage of specific CENT elements reported in the Methods was 41% (range, 16-87%), and the median percentage in the Results was 38% (range, 32-93%). First authors were predominantly from North America (46%), Europe (29%), and Australia (17%). Quality of reporting was higher in articles published in journals with relatively high-impact factors (P = 0.004). Conclusion: The quality of reporting of published N-of-1 trials is variable and in need of improvement. Because the CENT guidelines were not published until near the end of the period of this review, these results represent a baseline from which improvement may be expected in the future. © 2016 Elsevier Inc.

Discover hidden collaborations