Objective To compare the efficiency of epidermis cell culture between big graft method and small strip method. Methods The big graft method was to cut the skin tissue reticularly from dermis layer while the epidermis were not cut off. After it was digested fully in trypsin, theepidermis was separated from skin and was used to culture epidermal cells. The small strip method was routine. The time to cut the skin and to separate the epidermis was recorded, and the number and quality of cells were compared between two methods. Results It took 8-10 minutes to cut an area of 5 cm2 skin into small strips and 1-2 minutes into big grafts. It took 10-15 minutes to separate the epidermis from the same area skin by small strip method and 2 minutes by big graft method. The cells showed better vigor and its number was more by big grafts than by small strips.The chance of fibroblast contamination was reduced obviously. Conclusion The big graft method is simpler than the small strip method and can culture more epidermis cells with less chance of fibroblast contamination.
Based on the principles and methods of systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials, systematic review of economic analyses can integrate information from multiple economic studies which focus on the same clinical questions. It can also provide important insights by systematically examining how differences among studies lead to different results. Generally, there are seven steps to conduct such a review: 1) formulating questions; 2) establishing eligibility criteria; 3) searching and selecting eligible economic analyses; 4) assessing the validity of economic analyses; 5) acquiring data; 6) analyzing and synthesizing data; and 7) presenting results. Owing to the specificity of economic analyses, many methodological challenges exist, including the varieties of economic models, analytic perspectives, time horizons, and uncertainty and sensitivity analysis among different economic analyses. This may cause difficulties for critical assessment of the economic analyses.
Objective To provide methodological guidance for the application of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods The methodology literature on MAIC was examined to clarify key steps and methodological points, and MAIC application literature in the non-small cell lung cancer field published after January 2016 was systematically reviewed to compare and analyze the current status and problems of MAIC. Results MAIC consisted of five key steps: data source and sample selection, matching variable screening, individual weight calculation, matching validity evaluation, and relative efficacy calculation. The systematic review revealed that studies primarily employed literature reviews to screen data sources, used statistical analysis and other scientific methods to screen matching variables, employed software for individual weight calculation, evaluated matching validity by reporting effective sample size (ESS), calculated relative efficacy using Cox, logistic, and other models, conducted sensitivity analyses to evaluate the uncertainty caused by different data sources and matching variable combinations, and the studies demonstrated good overall reporting standardization but significant differences in particular aspects. Concerning the connection between MAIC and pharmacoeconomic research, studies included mainly used target drugs as the reference group of survival data extrapolation, and proportional hazards (PH) assumptions were considered when utilizing hazard ratios (HR) in extrapolation. Conclusion There are some deficiencies in the method application and reporting standards of MAIC research, such as lack of explanation of data source selection criteria and matching variable screening criteria, insufficient reporting of weight distribution, and inadequate consideration of PH assumptions. It is recommended that future MAIC research systematically screen data sources and report covariate distribution evaluation, covariate status evaluation, weight distribution, uncertainty measurement, etc. Additionally, considering PH assumptions after calculating HR is suggested.
Objective To systematically review the requirements of patient participation in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in Chinese and foreign guideline development manuals. Methods Thirty-six authoritative society websites and guideline databases and 5 commonly used databases were searched online. Relevant information on patients’ participation in the guideline manuals was collected, summarized, and analyzed. Results A total of 37 manuals (33 foreign and 4 Chinese) were included. The requirements for the number of patients, the right to speak, status equality, and the right to vote in the guideline development manual accounted for 35.1%, 13.5%, 8.1%, and 5.4%, respectively. The requirements for participants’ mode of participation were not mentioned in the guideline development manuals from 2000 to 2010. There were 6 (16.2%) in 2011–2015 and 12 (32.4%) in 2016–2022. The comprehensive guidelines for multiple disease types accounted for 35.7%, 28.6%, and 57.1%, respectively, in terms of requirements for participants’ knowledge or experience, management of specialized personnel, and training support. The specific guidelines for a certain type of disease or drug accounted for 21.7%, 4.3%, and 17.4%, respectively; fifteen (40.5%) guideline development manuals mentioned the specific collection forms of patients’ values and preferences in guideline development. Conclusion Given changes to medical models and the emphasis on patients’ rights and interests, an increasing number of manuals have proposed requirements that consider the expression of patients’ values and preferences in manual development, and the dimensions of manual development are constantly enriched. However, manuals outlining the requirements of patient participation are still not comprehensive and can continue to improve.
This article mainly introduced the purpose and scope relating to the 11 Cochrane methods groups for Cochrane systematic reviews and encourage more people to contribute to the research on methodology.
Retrospective chart review (RCR) is a type of research that answers specific research questions based on the existing patient medical records or related databases through a series of research processes including data extraction, data collation, statistical analysis, etc. Relying on the development of medical big data, as well as the relatively simple implementation process and low cost of information acquisition, RCR is increasingly used in the medical research field. In this paper, we conducted the visual analysis of high-quality RCR published in the past five years, and explored and summarized the current research status and hotspots by analyzing the characteristics of the number of publications, national/regional and institutional cooperation networks, author cooperation networks, keyword co-occurrence and clustering networks. We further systematically combed the methodological core of this kind of research from eight aspects: research question and hypothesis, applicability of chart, study design, data collecting, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and reporting specification. By summarizing the shortcomings, unique advantages and application prospects of RCR, providing guidance and suggestions for the standardized application of RCR in the medical research field in the future.
Objectives To explore the quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), PubMed, EMbase, the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBMdisc), VIP Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from establishment to February 2007). We also checked the reference lists of included studies. The quality of the reporting of RCTs was assessed using the 22-item checklist of the CONSORT Statement and other self-established criteria. Results Thirty-eight RCTs were included. The word “randomization” was not present in any of the trials, and only 17 reports used a structured abstract. All trials did not report the scientific background and the rational for the trial, the estimation of the necessary sample size, the methods of allocation concealment and blinding, participant flow chart, ITT analysis, and ancillary analyses. Some authors misunderstood the diagnostic criteria and inclusion criteria, some selected inappropriate control interventions, and some did not clearly describe their statistical methods or used incorrect methods. All 38 trials reported positive outcomes, few reported adverse effects. No report included a general interpretation of the new trial’s results in the context of current evidence in their discussion section, and none mentioned the limitations of the study, the clinical and research implications or the external validity of the trial findings. Conclusion The overall reporting quality of RCTs of TCM for CFS is poor. Defects are found in each section of the reports. Researchers and journal editors should learn and use the principles and methods of evidence-based medicine—especially the use of a transparent prospective clinical trial register and the CONSORT Statement—to improve the design, conduct and report TCM trials.
When prioritizing clinical questions in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, clinical questions with high recognition and low variability, or high score and less disagreement among experts were often prioritized, while questions with high recognition but high variability were excluded. By this approach, clinical questions with practical value but also showed high variability due to different causes were not accepted as priorities. There were some methodological and clinical limitations by doing so. By summarizing the causes and connotations of expert opinion variability in terms of clinical experience, expertise and values, this paper analyzed the advantages of the variability quantification application, and proposed corresponding methodological recommendations, so as to provide references for guideline developers in the priority selection of clinical questions.
The necessity and methods of systematic review or Meta-analysis of observational studies were introduced. The difference between the systematic review or Meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials was also described.
The background and status of the quality assessment instruments of clinical trials, and several frequently used instruments both domesticly and abroad were introduced, and the problems in this field were discussed.