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。     

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...     

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...     

血清IL-6和胃蛋白酶原Ⅰ/Ⅱ比值对老年胃癌患者预后评估的价值

目的探究老年胃癌患者术前血清白细胞介素6 (IL-6)、胃蛋白酶原(PG)Ⅰ、Ⅱ及PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ比值在患者预后评估中的意义。方法选择2016年1月—2017年1月南通大学附属海安医院收治的101例外科手术治疗的老年胃癌患者为研究对象。收集患者的临床病理资料,检测血清IL-6和PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ水平。以全因死亡为随访终点,使用Kaplan-Meier曲线明确患者预后与各指标间的关系。结果受试者工作特征曲线提示,IL-6、PG-Ⅰ和PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ比值在最佳切割值为10.23pg/mL、30.65μg/L和2.44时,可评估患者的预后,而PG-Ⅱ则无法评估患者的预后。与IL-6≤10.23pg/mL组相比,IL-6> 10.23pg/mL组的肿瘤细胞分化更差、TNM分期Ⅲ期比例明显升高。Kaplan-Meier曲线结果表明,IL-6> 10.23pg/mL组的中位生存期显著短于IL-6≤10.23pg/mL组(28个月vs47个月,P<0.001);PG-Ⅰ≤30.65μg/L组的中位生存期显著短于PG-Ⅰ>30.65μg/L组(34个月vs49个月,P=0.008);PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ≤2.44组的中位生存期显著短于PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ> 2.44组(29个月vs56个月,P=0.02)。多因素Cox回归分析表明,肿瘤分化程度、TNM分期、IL-6及PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ比值是影响患者生存率的独立危险因素。结论术前检测IL-6及PG-Ⅰ/Ⅱ比值有助于评估老年胃癌患者的预后。     

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.