熊磊教授基于“脾为痰源”辨治儿童癫痫临证思路探赜

熊磊教授以理脾为本，将治痰贯穿始终。根据小儿脾常不足、肾常虚、肝常有余的生理特点，癫痫发作期治疗主以涤痰开窍，辅以理气健脾，同时配合活血化瘀通窍与平肝息风潜阳。主要选方为柴芍温胆汤、天麻钩藤饮、桃红四物汤加减；缓解期则以补肾养肝为主，兼以健脾化痰，主要选方为杞菊地黄丸合定痫丸加减，取得较好临床疗效。     

Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical Oral Investigations - To evaluate t he long-term outcomes following treatment of RT 1 multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGR) using the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) with...     

朝鲜淫羊藿酸性多糖的理化特性及对HepG2细胞脂质堆积的改善作用＊

目的 对比研究朝鲜淫羊藿酸性多糖酯化还原前后的理化特性，并探讨其改善油酸诱导的肝癌HepG2细胞脂质堆积活性的差异。方法 采用高效凝胶渗透色谱法测定朝鲜淫羊藿酸性多糖（EFPA）的均一性和分子量，高效液相色谱法测定EFPA和酯化还原后朝鲜淫羊藿酸性多糖（EFPA-R）的单糖组成；采用油酸（OA）处理HepG2细胞诱导建立脂质蓄积模型，不同浓度EFPA与EFPA-R（10、30、100、300 μg·mL^-1）分别和OA共同作用于细胞24 h，采用CCK-8试剂盒测定细胞存活率，油红O染色观察细胞内脂滴蓄积情况，并采用试剂盒测定细胞内总胆固醇（TC）、甘油三酯（TG）含量。结果 EFPA为成分均一的多糖组分，分子量为125.8 kDa，由甘露糖、葡萄糖、半乳糖、葡萄糖醛酸和阿拉伯糖组成，摩尔比为1.7∶7.4∶1.4∶1.8∶1.0，葡萄糖占比最大，EFPA-R由甘露糖、葡萄糖、半乳糖和阿拉伯糖组成，摩尔比为0.8∶10.6∶2.1∶1.0；在10-300 μg·mL^-1范围内，EFPA和EFPA-R对HepG2细胞的抑制作用较弱，作为给药浓度；与空白组相比，模型组细胞中TC、TG含量显著升高（P < 0.01），细胞内红色脂滴显著增多，与模型组相比，EFPA可显著降低细胞中TC、TG含量（P < 0.01），明显减少细胞内红色脂滴（P < 0.05或P < 0.01），EFPA-R干预后细胞则无明显变化。结论 EFPA可明显改善HepG2细胞脂质堆积情况，且呈现剂量依赖性，而半乳糖醛酸（GalA）的存在可能是其抑制HepG2细胞脂质蓄积的关键因素。     

Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

Update PONV – Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen?

Die Anaesthesiologie - Auch wenn für Anästhesiologen über Jahrzehnte die Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Schmerzen im Rahmen des postoperativen Patientenkomforts an vorderster...     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.