Comparison of three different methods to estimate the burden of disease of burn injuries in Western Australia in 2011-2018

BackgroundPriority setting and resource allocation in health care, surveillance and interventions is based increasingly on burden of disease. Several methods exist to calculate the non-fatal burden of disease of burns expressed in years lived with disability (YLDs). The aim of this study was to assess the burden of disease due to burns in Western Australia 2011–2018 and compare YLD outcomes between three existing methods.MethodsData from the Burns Service of Western Australia was used. Three existing methods to assess YLDs were compared: the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) method, a method dedicated to assess injury YLDs (Injury-VIBES), and a method dedicated to assess burns YLDs (INTEGRIS-burns).ResultsIncidence data from 2,866 burn patients were used. Non-fatal burden of disease estimates differed substantially between the different methods. Estimates for 2011–2018 ranged between 610 and 1,085 YLDs per 100.000 based on the Injury-VIBES method; between 209 and 324 YLDs based on the INTEGRIS-burns method; and between 89 and 120 YLDs based on the GBD method. YLDs per case were three to nine times higher when the Injury-VIBES method was applied compared to the other methods. Also trends in time differed widely through application of the different methods. There was a strong increase in YLDs over the years when the Injury-VIBES method was applied, a slight increase when the INTEGRIS-burns method was applied and a stable pattern when the GBD method was applied.ConclusionThis study showed that the choice for a specific method heavily influences the non-fatal burden of disease expressed in YLDs, both in terms of annual estimates as well as in trends over time. By addressing the methodological limitations evident in previously published calculations of the non-fatal burden of disease, the INTEGRIS-burns seems to present a method to provide the most robust estimates to date, as it is the only method adapted to the nature of burn injuries and their recovery.     

20种中成药微生物限度检查方法验证

目的：建立20种中成药微生物限度检查方法。方法：按《中国药典》（2010版）的规定,进行各品种微生物限度检查方法的验证。结果：13个品种（感冒清热颗粒、解郁安神颗粒、千柏鼻炎片、男宝胶囊、心脑康胶囊、利肺片、养血安神片、护肝片、清脑降压片、治咳枇杷露、小儿化痰止咳糖浆、复方胆通片、血栓心脉宁胶囊）无抑菌作用,回收率均大于70%,可采用常规法进行细菌数测定;5个品种（抗骨增生片、炎立消片、痹欣片、炎可宁片、痔速宁片）对金黄色葡萄球菌和枯草芽孢杆菌有不同程度的抑菌作用,可采用培养基稀释法（前3个0.5 mL/皿、后2个0.2 mL/皿）进行细菌数测定;2个品种（四季三黄片、板兰根咀嚼片）对金黄色葡萄球菌和枯草芽孢杆菌有较强的抑制作用,可采用薄膜过滤法进行细菌数测定,所有品种的霉菌、酵母菌和控制菌数均采用常规法进行测定。结论：以上验证方法作为各品种微生物限度检查方法是可行的。     

不同厂家通便灵胶囊微生物限度检查方法学验证的探讨

目的：通过对不同厂家同一品种的方法学验证,建立通便灵胶囊微生物限度检查方法。方法按《中国药典》2010版的要求。通过接种代表性的阳性菌株,用常规法及培养基稀释法对五株阳性菌进行回收率测定。结果该品种有抑菌性,采用培养基稀释法对五株阳性菌株回收率均高于70%。结论本样品微生物限度检查中,细菌检查可用培养基稀释法,霉菌酵母菌及控制菌检查可采用常规法。     

应用追踪方法学持续改进医院药物管理

成立追踪评价组,应用追踪方法学,追踪药品从进入医院到贮存、流转再到患者使用及不良反应上报的全过程,对质量缺陷进行持续改进.追踪方法学能真正体现“以患者为中心”理念,能有效促进相关系统间沟通与协作,但需联合运用其它质量管理工具方能获得最佳成效.     

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology policy on the application for,and implementation of,clinical practice guidelines

An important mandate of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG), as documented in the Association’s governance policies, is to optimize the care of patients with digestive disorders. Clinical practice guidelines are one means of achieving this goal. The benefits of timely, high-quality and evidenced-based recommendations include:

• Enhancing the professional development of clinical members through education and dissemination of synthesized clinical research;
• Improving patient care provided by members by providing focus on quality and evidence;
• Creating legislative environments that favour effective clinical practice;
• Enhancing the clinical care provided to patients with digestive disease by nongastroenterologists; and
• Identifying areas that require further information or research to improve clinical care.

The present document provides the foundation required to ensure that clinical practice guidelines produced by the CAG are necessary, appropriate, credible and applicable. These recommendations should be adhered to as closely as possible to obtain CAG endorsement.     

Assessing blinding in trials of psychiatric disorders: A meta-analysis based on blinding index

The assessment of blinding in RCTs is rarely performed. Currently most studies that do report data on evaluation of blinding merely report percentages of correct guessing, not taking into account correct guessing by chance. Blinding assessment using the blinding index (BI) has never been performed in a systematic review on studies of major psychiatric disorders. This study is a systematic review of psychiatric randomized control trials using the BI as a chance-corrected measurement of blinding, a tool to analyze and understand the patterns of blinding across studies of major psychiatric disorders with available data. Of 2467 psychiatric RCTs from 2000 to 2010, 66 reported on blinding and 40 studies were found to have enough information on evaluation of blinding to be analyzed using the BI. The experimental treatment groups had an average BI value of 0.14 and the control groups had an average BI value of 0.00. The most common BI scenario was random–random, indicating ideal blinding. A positive correlation between effect size and more correct guesses was also found. Overall, based on BI values and the most common blinding scenario, the published articles on major psychiatric disorders from 2000 to 2010, which reported on blinding assessment for patients, were effectively blinded.     

The global prevalence of headache: an update,with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates

BackgroundAccording to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, headache disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. GBD builds on epidemiological studies (published and unpublished) which are notable for wide variations in both their methodologies and their prevalence estimates.Our first aim was to update the documentation of headache epidemiological studies, summarizing global prevalence estimates for all headache, migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) and headache on ≥15 days/month (H15+), comparing these with GBD estimates and exploring time trends and geographical variations. Our second aim was to analyse how methodological factors influenced prevalence estimates.MethodsIn a narrative review, all prevalence studies published until 2020, excluding those of clinic populations, were identified through a literature search. Prevalence data were extracted, along with those related to methodology, world region and publication year. Bivariate analyses (correlations or comparisons of means) and multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses were performed.ResultsFrom 357 publications, the vast majority from high-income countries, the estimated global prevalence of active headache disorder was 52.0% (95%CI 48.9–55.4), of migraine 14.0% (12.9–15.2), of TTH 26.0% (22.7–29.5) and of H15+ 4.6% (3.9–5.5). These estimates were comparable with those of migraine and TTH in GBD2019, the most recent iteration, but higher for headache overall. Each day, 15.8% of the world’s population had headache. MLR analyses explained less than 30% of the variation. Methodological factors contributing to variation, were publication year, sample size, inclusion of probable diagnoses, sub-population sampling (e.g., of health-care personnel), sampling method (random or not), screening question (neutral, or qualified in severity or presumed cause) and scope of enquiry (headache disorders only or multiple other conditions). With these taken into account, migraine prevalence estimates increased over the years, while estimates for all headache types varied between world regions.ConclusionThe review confirms GBD in finding that headache disorders remain highly prevalent worldwide, and it identifies methodological factors explaining some of the large variation between study findings. These variations render uncertain both the increase in migraine prevalence estimates over time, and the geographical differences. More and better studies are needed in low- and middle-income countries.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01402-2.     

中国儿科领域随机对照试验报告质量横断面调查

目的 评估CONSORT声明自1997年引入中国以来,中国儿科杂志发表RCT的报告质量是否得到提高。方法手工检索中国大陆被中国科学引文数据库（CSCD）收录的6种国内儿科杂志（《中华儿科杂志》、《中华小儿外科杂志》、《中国当代儿科杂志》、《中国实用儿科杂志》、《中国循证儿科杂志》和《临床儿科杂志》）,检索时间均为创刊至2010年12月。对照CONSORT声明的评价条目清单,设计标准的资料提取表格,评估纳入文献的报告质量,使用SPSS18．0软件进行统计分析。结果619篇RCT文献进入分析。1997至2010年与1997年前发表的RCT相比,其在文题、摘要、引言、受试者招募、基线资料和辅助分析等方面的报告质量有一定的改善（P〈0．05）,但在方法学的报告方面存在报告不充分或不准确的问题,如确定样本量的方法（0．6％vs1．1％）、随机序列产生的方法（3．2％vs7．6％）、分配隐藏（0vs1．1％）、盲法（0vs2．6％）等。进一步对稿约中要求CONSORT声明的《中国循证儿科杂志》发表的9篇RCT进行评估,其CONSORT条目符合率均高于其他儿科杂志,特别在方法学的报告方面,如确定样本量的方法、随机序列产生的方法、分配隐藏和盲法等。结论总体而言,CONSORT声明的引入并没有使中国儿科领域RCT的报告质量从根本上提高。在稿约中要求CONSORT声明的杂志可显著提高RCT的报告质量。     

超声检测血管内皮功能的方法学及观测指标

心血管疾病的发生发展,多以心血管内皮功能障碍开始。对长期接触血管内皮损伤危险因子的人群,进行血管内皮功能的早期检测,发现异常,早期采取对策,对预防及延缓心血管疾病发生发展,具有较为重要的意义。采用高分辨率超声检测血管内皮功能,获得与有创方法相似的结论,但在方法学及观测指标上有所不同,现作一简要综述。