中国精神分裂症患者不同家庭干预措施效果比较的meta分析

目的对中国精神分裂症患者采取家庭干预的研究文献进行综合回顾和系统评价, 比较不同条件下家庭干预效果的差异。方法在中国知网、维普、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库四大中文数据库及OVID Medline、Science Direct、Web of Science、EBSCO四大英文数据库中, 检索各数据库建库至2015年1月为止使用社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)、简明精神病(科)量表(BPRS)、阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)研究中国精神分裂症患者家庭干预效果的文献, 以标准化加权均数差( SMD)作为效应量, 采用meta分析比较不同干预时间、不同干预类型、对不同病程和不同严重程度的精神分裂症患者的家庭干预效果差异。 结果共纳入57篇符合标准的文献。SDSS、PANSS分析结果显示:① 干预时间越长干预效果越好( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0025);② 单独家庭干预比多个家庭合并单独家庭干预的效果更明显( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0131);③ 干预对于病情较重患者效果较好( P < 0.0001、 P=0.0280)。SDSS量表还显示家庭干预对于病程短的患者效果更好( P < 0.0001)。 结论家庭干预更适合病程较短的精神分裂症患者, 干预应实施较长时间; 单独家庭干预更有利于患者阴性症状的改善和社会功能的康复, 且对于病情较轻患者的阴性症状改善效果更好。     

提高选题策划质量 提升行业期刊品牌影响力——以金属加工杂志社实践为例

【目的】 探讨行业期刊进行选题策划的方法,提升选题策划的质量。【方法】 利用互联网技术及新媒体资源,结合金属加工杂志社选题策划实例,归纳出几种选题策划的途径及方法。【结果】 结合行业热点进行选题策划,注重实效性和内容深度,提升期刊内容的可读性,可使期刊获得更多读者的关注和认可,提升期刊的行业影响力。【结论】 提高选题策划质量,可有效提升期刊内容的可读性,从而进一步提升期刊在行业的影响力。     

Impact and Predictors of Noncircular Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Shapes on Estimating Aortic Stenosis Severity by Means of Continuity Equations

Determining aortic stenosis (AS) severity is clinically important. Calculating aortic valve (AV) area by means of the continuity equation assumes a circular left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). The full impact of this assumption in calculating AV area is unknown. Predictors of noncircular LVOT shape in patients with AS are undefined.In 109 adult patients with AS who underwent multiplanar transesophageal echocardiography, we calculated AV area by means of the standard continuity method and by a modified method involving planimetric LVOT area.We found 54 circular, 37 horizontal-oval, 8 vertical-oval, and 10 irregular LVOTs. Area derived by direct planimetry correlated better with the modified than the standard continuity method (r=0.89 vs r=0.85; both P=0.0001). Valve areas of patients with mild, moderate, or severe AS by planimetry were more often mischaracterized with use of the standard than modified method (29 vs 18; P <0.0001). Horizontal-oval AV area derived by planimetry (1.28 ± 0.55 cm²) was underestimated by the standard method (1.05 ± 0.47 cm²; P=0.001), but not by the modified method. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index were the only multivariate predictors of horizontal-oval shape. Low cardiac index was the only predictor of noncircular shape.More than half our patients with AS had noncircular LVOTs. Using the modified method reduces mischaracterizations of AS severity. Congenital AV morphology and low cardiac index predict horizontal-oval or noncircular shape. These data suggest the value of direct LVOT measurement to calculate AS severity in patients who have congenital AV or a low cardiac index.     

Riesgo de recurrencia tras retirada de la anticoagulación en pacientes con enfermedad tromboembólica venosa no provocada: validación externa del nomograma de Viena y del modelo predictivo DASH

IntroductionScales for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence are useful for deciding the duration of the anticoagulant treatment. Although there are several scales, the most appropriate for our setting has not been identified. For this reason, we aimed to validate the DASH prediction score and the Vienna nomogram at 12 months.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of unselected consecutive VTE patients seen between 2006 and 2014. We compared the ability of the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram to predict recurrences of VTE. The validation was performed by stratifying patients as low-risk or high-risk, according to each scale (discrimination) and comparing the observed recurrence with the expected rate (calibration).ResultsOf 353 patients evaluated, 195 were analyzed, with an average age of 53.5 ± 19 years. There were 21 recurrences in 1 year (10.8%, 95% CI: 6.8%-16%). According to the DASH score, 42% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in this group was 4.9% (95% CI: 1.3%-12%) vs. the high-risk group that was 15% (95% CI: 9%-23%) (p <.05). According to the Vienna nomogram, 30% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in the low risk group vs. the high risk group was 4.2% (95% CI:0.5%-14%) vs. 16.2% (95% CI: 9.9%-24.4%) (p <.05).ConclusionsOur study validates the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram in our population. The DASH prediction score may be the most advisable, both because of its simplicity and its ability to identify more low-risk patients than the Vienna nomogram (42% vs. 30%).