基于HPLC指纹图谱、多指标成分含量测定结合化学计量学的怀牛膝质量评价＊

目的 本实验采用HPLC方法建立来自3个产地15批怀牛膝药材的指纹图谱，并对β-蜕皮甾酮，25R-牛膝甾酮，25S-牛膝甾酮进行含量测定，同时通过化学计量学的方法对15批怀牛膝进行质量评价。方法 选用Waters SunFire C₁₈（150 mm×4.6 mm，5 μm）色谱柱，检测波长280 nm，以乙腈-0.1%甲酸水梯度洗脱，流速为1.0 mL·min^-1，柱温25℃，进样量10 μL。以β-蜕皮甾酮峰为参照峰，运用软件《中药色谱指纹图谱相似度评价系统（2012版）》对15批怀牛膝药材进行相似度分析，使用Metabo Analyst 5.0网站进行聚类热图分析，使用SIMCA 14.1软件进行PCA和PLS-DA分析。结果 标定了31个共有指纹峰，指认了3个已知成分，并对其进行含量测定，化学计量学分析结果将15批怀牛膝药材样品分为3类，并且筛选了不同产地间潜在的差异性成分。结论 该方法具有良好的精密度、重复性以及稳定性，可为怀牛膝的质量评价与控制提供科学依据及参考。     

Process evaluation of implementation strategies to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in older population: A scoping review

ObjectivesSeveral implementation strategies can reduce potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing. Although use of PIMs has declined in recent years, it remains prevalent. Various strategies exist to improve the appropriateness of medication use. However, little is known about the processes of these different implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to investigate how the process evaluation of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in the older population has been studied.MethodsWe searched for process evaluations of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in PUBMED, SCOPUS and Web of Science published between January 2000 and November 2019 in English. We applied the following inclusion criteria: patients aged ≥65 years, validated PIM criteria, and implementation process evaluated. The review focuses on decision support for health care professionals. We described the findings of the process evaluations, and compared the authors’ concepts of process evaluation of the included publications to those of Proctor et al.( 2010).ResultOf 9131 publications screened, 29 met our inclusion criteria. Different process evaluation conceptualizations were identified. Most process evaluations took place in the initial stages of the process (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility) and sustainability and implementation costs were seldom evaluated. None of the included publications evaluated fidelity.Multifaceted interventions were the most studied implementation strategies. Medication review was more common in acceptability evaluations, multidisciplinary interventions in adoption evaluations, and computerized systems and educational interventions in feasibility evaluations. Process evaluations were studied from the health care professionals’ viewpoint in most of the included publications, but the management viewpoint was missing.DiscussionThe conceptualization of process evaluation in the field of PIM prescribing is indeterminate. There is also a current gap in the knowledge of sustainability and implementation costs. Clarifying the conceptualization of implementation process evaluation is essential in order to effectively translate research knowledge into practice.     

NEMA NU 2-2018标准在PET/CT系统性能测试中的作用评价

目的 评价美国国家电器制造协会(National Electrical Manufactures Association, NEMA)最新标准(NU 2-2018)在正电子发射型计算机断层显像/电子计算机断层显像(positron emission tomography/computed tomography, PET/CT)设备性能检测中的作用。 方法 依据最新的NEMA NU 2-2018标准,检测西门子Biograph Vision PET/CT的空间分辨率、灵敏度、散射分数、计数丢失、随机符合、飞行时间分辨率、计数丢失率和随机符合校正精度、图像质量、衰减和散射校正精度及PET与CT配准精度指标。 结果 距视野中心1 cm处横向和轴向空间分辨率分别为3.75 mm和3.76 mm;在视野中心和轴向10 cm处的灵敏度分别为16.83 kcps/MBq和16.67 kcps/MBq;放射性浓度为27.37 kBq/mL时,最大等效噪声计数率为258.26 kcps,散射分数为38.58%;系统时间分辨率为209.82 ps;图像质量模型的对比度恢复系数范围为88.9%~96.2%,背景变异系数范围为2.05%~6.80%,平均肺插件残余误差为2.43%;计数丢失和随机符合校正最大误差为3.9%;距离床板末端 5 cm 和 100 cm处,在距视野中心Y轴1 cm处,PET和CT的配准精度分别为0.46 mm和1.07 mm,在距视野中心X轴20 cm处,PET和CT的配准精度分别为1.06 mm和1.45 mm,在距视野中心Y轴20 cm处PET和CT的配准精度分别为0.85 mm和1.15 mm。 结论 NEMA NU 2-2018标准检测条件更加接近临床,能更好地反映PET/CT设备的系统性能。     

一体化管理的老年综合评估护理模式对前列腺癌患者心理因素和生活质量的影响

目的探讨对前列腺癌患者采用一体化管理老年综合评估(CGA)护理模式对其心理因素和生活质量的影响。方法选取2020年3月至2021年3月在南京市第一医院就诊,确诊为前列腺癌,且首次行腹腔镜下前列腺癌根治术的患者96例,随机分为对照组、观察1组、观察2组,各32例。对照组为住院后采用常规护理模式进行护理,观察1组为入院后行CGA干预组,观察2组为一体化管理的CGA干预组。三组患者分别在干预前、出院时,进行焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)测评;在干预前、术后30 d,进行生活质量核心量表QLQ-C30(V3.0)和前列腺癌特异性补充量表QLQ-PR25测评。结果出院时,观察2组SAS、SDS评分显著优于对照组及观察1组(P<0.05);术后30 d,观察2组生活质量QLQ-C30、QLQ-PR25评分显著优于对照组及观察1组(P<0.05)。结论一体化管理CGA护理模式可有效改善前列腺癌患者的心理状态,提高其术后生活质量。     

Estimating Cost-Effectiveness Using Alternative Preference-Based Scores and Within-Trial Methods: Exploring the Dynamics of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Using the EQ-5D 5-Level Version and Recovering Quality of Life Utility Index

ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and subsequent cost-effectiveness estimates based on the more physical health–focused EQ-5D 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L) value set for England or cross-walked EQ-5D 3-level version UK value set scores or more mental health recovery-focused Recovering Quality of Life Utility Index (ReQoL-UI), when using alternative within-trial statistical methods. We describe possible reasons for the different QALY estimates based on the interaction between item scores, health state profiles, preference-based scores, and mathematical and statistical methods chosen.MethodsQALYs are calculated over 8 weeks from a case study 2:1 (intervention:control) randomized controlled trial in patients with anxiety or depression. Complete case and with missing cases imputed using multiple-imputation analyses are conducted, using unadjusted and regression baseline-adjusted QALYs. Cost-effectiveness is judged using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and acceptability curves. We use previously established psychometric results to reflect on estimated QALYs.ResultsA total of 361 people (241:120) were randomized. EQ-5D-5L crosswalk produced higher incremental QALYs than the value set for England or ReQoL-UI, which produced similar unadjusted QALYs, but contrasting baseline-adjusted QALYs. Probability of cost-effectiveness <£30 000 per QALY ranged from 6% (complete case ReQoL-UI baseline-adjusted QALYs) to 64.3% (multiple-imputation EQ-5D-5L crosswalk unadjusted QALYs). The control arm improved more on average than the intervention arm on the ReQoL-UI, a result not mirrored on the EQ-5D-5L nor condition-specific (Patient-Health Questionnaire-9, depression; Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, anxiety) measures.ConclusionsReQoL-UI produced contradictory cost-effectiveness results relative to the EQ-5D-5L. The EQ-5D-5L’s better responsiveness and “anxiety/depression” and “usual activities” items drove the incremental QALY results. The ReQoL-UI’s single physical health item and “personal recovery” construct may have influenced its lower 8-week incremental QALY estimates in this patient sample.