医学期刊编辑对生物医学研究伦理问题的处理方式调研及建议

【目的】 探讨医学期刊编辑处理生物医学研究伦理问题的方式,为推动确立医学期刊伦理审查规范提供参考。【方法】 通过问卷星向国内医学期刊编辑发放调查问卷,对审稿时和论文出版后处理医学伦理相关问题的方式展开调研。【结果】 共回收问卷230份。调查显示:在审稿阶段,在保护患者隐私方面,英文期刊、中英双语期刊的编辑更注重要求作者提供授权同意相关证明材料;中、英文期刊以及中英双语期刊的编辑对涉及人体试验伦理问题的处理方式都比较规范。但是,对于研究是否获得患者知情同意、动物实验研究是否经过伦理委员会审查、回顾性研究是否需要伦理审查、涉及人的研究是否在临床试验注册中心注册等问题,编辑还需要进一步重视。在论文出版后,编辑发现的医学伦理问题主要是“涉及人的研究未说明是否经过伦理委员会审查”。对论文出版后发现的没有保护患者隐私和没有在临床试验注册中心注册的问题,大部分期刊缺乏相关处理方案。【结论】 编辑应加强对论文知情同意、动物实验伦理、回顾性研究伦理的审查,并审查涉及人的研究是否在临床试验注册中心注册,以推动我国医学期刊的高质量发展。     

癌症生存者家庭适应相关测量工具的研究进展

介绍家庭适应的相关概念及起源,阐述家庭适应方面常用测量工具的发展历程、内容结构、适用人群、评分方法、信度与效度、应用现状等情况,以期能够指导临床工作者在实践过程中选择合适的家庭适应测量工具,旨在帮助研究者进一步开发适用于我国癌症生存者的特异性家庭适应测量工具。     

中医药治疗特发性肺纤维化的系统评价再评价＊

目的 对中医药治疗特发性肺纤维化（idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis， IPF）的系统评价（SRs）进行再评价。方法 检索知网、中国生物医学数据库、维普、万方、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、PubMed和EMbase数据库，纳入中医药治疗IPF的SRs，截止2021年5月。使用AMSTAR 2量表进行方法学质量评价，GRADE系统工具进行结局指标证据质量分级。结果 共纳入28篇文献，试验组除辨证论治外，治疗方法集中在活血化瘀、补肺益气等方面，基本符合治疗法则。结果显示中医药治疗IPF可以提高有效率、增加肺功能、提高PaO₂、增加6WMD、缓解临床症状、提高患者的生活质量等。AMSTAR 2量表评价，所纳入SRs均有多项关键条目不达标，整体方法学质量等级不高。采用GRADE工具进行质量分级，一共234个结局指标，无高等证据质量，整体证据等级不高。结论 中医药对比西医治疗IPF有效且不良反应不明显，但RCT研究和系统评价研究方法质量尚有缺陷，完全按照西医评价指标可能会低估真实结果，未来需要更规范的研究及适合中医的评价指标，对中医药研究的安全性方面关注还有待提高。     

Adjunct therapies after botulinum toxin injections in spastic adults: Systematic review and SOFMER recommendations

BackgroundAdjunct therapies (ATs) may further improve outcomes after botulinum toxin injections in spastic patients, but evidence was unclear in previous systematic reviews.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological ATs in spastic adults according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and build an expert consensus-based on a Delphi process.MethodsFour electronic databases were searched up to May 2020 for reports of comparative trials of non-pharmacologic ATs after botulinum toxin injections in spastic adults. Then, 25 French experts participated in a two-round Delphi process to build recommendations on the use of ATs.ResultsWe included 32 studies (1202 participants, median 32/study) evaluating the effects of physical agents (n = 9), joint posture procedures (JPPs, n = 11), and active ATs (n = 14), mainly after stroke. The average quality of articles was good for randomised controlled trials (median [interquartile range] PEDro score = 7 [6–8]) but moderate (n = 2) or poor (n = 2) for non-randomised controlled trials (Downs & Black checklist). Meta-analysis was precluded owing to the heterogeneity of ATs, control groups and outcome measures. There is evidence for the use of JPPs except low-dose manual stretching and soft posture techniques. Continuous postures (by taping or casting) are recommended; discontinuous postures (by orthosis) may be preferred in patients with active function. Device-free or device-assisted active ATs may be beneficial in the mid-term (> 3 months after botulinum toxin injections), particularly when performed at a high-intensity (> 3 h/week) as in constraint-induced movement therapy. Self-rehabilitation remains understudied after a focal treatment, but its interest is highlighted by the experts. The use of physical agents is not recommended.ConclusionsJPPs and active ATs (device-assisted or device-free) may further improve impairments and activities after botulinum toxin injections. Further studies are needed to better define the best strategies for ATs as a function of the individual treatment goals, participation and quality of life.Review RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42018105856).     

物理治疗翻转课堂教学应用效果的系统综述

目的 系统评价翻转课堂教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的应用效果。方法 计算机检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Plus、Academic Search Premier、Teacher Reference Center、ERIC以及Education Research,纳入翻转课堂教学模式应用于物理治疗学教学的原始研究。检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究人员独立完成文献筛选、数据提取、质量评价,对翻转课堂教学模式对比传统教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的效果进行综述。结果与结论 共检索文献1 307篇,最终纳入7篇,包括至少770名学生。发表时间集中在2013年至2019年,研究对象为物理治疗学专业学生,主要结局指标为考试成绩。翻转课堂教学模式总体说来可提高学生的笔试成绩,增强高阶思维能力,得到了学生和教师的积极评价。     

Differences in Evidentiary Requirements Between European Medicines Agency and European Health Technology Assessment of Oncology Drugs—Can Alignment Be Enhanced?

ObjectivesNational health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe show differences in evidentiary requirements from assessments by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), affecting time to patient access for drugs after marketing authorization. This article analyzes the differences between EMA and HTA bodies’ evidentiary requirements for oncology drugs and provides recommendations on potential further alignment to minimize and optimally manage the remaining differences.MethodsInterviews were performed with representatives and drug assessment experts from EMA and HTA bodies to identify evidentiary requirements for several subdomains and collect recommendations for potentially more efficiently addressing differences. A comparative analysis of acceptability of the evidence by EMA and the HTA bodies and for potential further alignment between both authorities was conducted.ResultsAcceptability of available evidence was higher for EMA than HTA bodies. HTA bodies and EMA were aligned on evidentiary requirements in most cases. The subdomains showing notable differences concerned the acceptance of limitation of the target population and extrapolation of target populations, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, cross-over designs, short trial duration, and clinical relevance of the effect size. Recommendations for reducing or optimally managing differences included joint early dialogues, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of managed entry agreements.ConclusionsDifferences between assessments of EMA and HTA bodies were identified in important areas of evidentiary requirements. Increased alignment between EMA and HTA bodies is suggested and recommendations for realization are discussed.     

Filiform needle acupuncture for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundFiliform needle acupuncture (FNA), the most classical and widely applied acupuncture method based on traditional Chinese medicine theory, has shown a promising effect in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient preference of FNA in the treatment of AR by comparing FNA with sham acupuncture, no treatment, and conventional medication.Search strategyEight electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to October 14, 2021. Additional studies were acquired from clinical trial registration platforms and reference lists.Inclusion criteriaRandomized controlled trials were included if they compared FNA with either sham acupuncture, no treatment or conventional medication for AR.Data extraction and analysisTwo researchers extracted data independently of each other using a predesigned data acquisition form, and results were cross-checked after completion. The primary outcome was symptom score (Total Nasal Symptom Score or Visual Analogue Scale), and the secondary outcomes were the AR control questionnaire, quality of life (QoL) score (Different versions of Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire), medication score (use of rescue medication), mental health score, total IgE, adverse event rate, clinical economic indicators, and patient satisfaction score. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval was used to calculate the effect size for continuous data, while risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous data.ResultsThirty studies were included in this review. Compared with sham acupuncture, FNA significantly reduced the symptom score (SMD: ?0.29 [?0.43, ?0.15]), AR’s impact on QoL (SMD: ?0.23 [?0.37, ?0.08]) and medication score (SMD: ?0.3 [?0.49, ?0.11]). Compared with no treatment, FNA dramatically reduced the symptom score (SMD: ?0.8 [?1.2, ?0.39]) and AR’s impact on QoL (SMD: ?0.82 [?1.13, ?0.52]). There were no increased rates of adverse events with FNA compared to sham acupuncture and no treatment. FNA increased patient satisfaction and may be cost-effective. Most pieces of evidence from the above two comparisons were of high confidence. Moreover, FNA significantly outperformed conventional medication in reducing the symptom score (SMD: ?0.48 [?0.85, ?0.1]) and displayed a lower rate of adverse events, but the quality of evidence was very low.ConclusionFNA is an effective and safe intervention for AR and can help with symptom relief, QoL improvement, reducing medication usage, and increasing patient satisfaction. Further studies are needed to verify its cost-effectiveness and superiority over conventional medication and the best therapeutic strategies.     

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting,Long-Acting,Ultralong-Acting,and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesThe incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.ResultsA total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.ConclusionsLong-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.