Esophageal cancer:Epidemiology,risk factors and screening

More than 600,000 people are diagnosed with esophageal cancer(EC)every year globally,and the five-year survival rate of EC is less than 20%.Two common histological subtypes of EC,esophageal squamous cell carcinoma(ESCC)and esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC),have great geographical variations in incidence rates.About half of the world’s EC was diagnosed in China and a majority of which belong to ESCC.Globally,the overall incidence rate of EC is decreasing.In some high-risk Asian regions,such as China,the incidence rate of ESCC has generally declined,potentially due to economic growth and improvement of diet habits.In some European high-income countries and the United States,the decline is mainly attributed to the decrease in smoking and drinking.The risk factors of EC are not well understood,and the importance of environmental and genetic factors in the pathogenesis is also unclear.The incidence and mortality of advanced EC can be reduced through early diagnosis and screening.White light endoscopy is still the gold standard in the current screening technology.This article reviews the epidemiology,risk factors,and screening strategies of EC in recent years to help researchers determine the most effective management strategies to reduce the risk of EC.

新冠病毒肺炎临床试验核心指标集

自2019年12月新型冠状病毒肺炎(Coronavirus Disease 2019, COVID-19)暴发以来,已有大量相关临床研究完成注册或已启动。然而,不同研究间临床结局指标存在显著的异质性,同时一些不关键的指标会造成研究资源的浪费。本研究旨在构建COVID-19临床试验核心结局指标集(core outcome set, COS),为相关临床研究方案设计、开展和证据转化提供参考。本研究的实施参照《有效性试验核心结局指标(COMET)手册》(1.0版),研究组成员包括呼吸系统和危重医学、中医学、循证医学、临床药理学、统计学专家以及医学杂志编辑等。通过检索临床试验注册网站(chictr.org.cn和clinicaltrials.gov)中COVID-19相关临床研究方案,提取方案中的结局指标,形成指标池。78个COVID-19临床试验方案纳入研究,收集结局指标259个,合并规范后确定132个结局指标,涉及7个指标域。经遴选,形成了包括58个结局指标在内的初始指标清单。经过两轮德尔菲调查和一轮共识会议,最终确立针对COVID-19不同临床分型的核心指标集(COS-COVID)。COS-COVID包括1个轻型指标(病毒核酸检测转阴时间)、4个普通型指标(住院时间、复合事件发生率、临床症状积分和病毒核酸检测转阴时间)、5个重型指标(复合事件发生率、住院时间、PaO2/FiO2、机械通气时间和病毒核酸检测转阴时间)、1个危重型指标(全因死亡率)及1个康复期指标(肺功能)。COS-COVID作为目前临床评价COVID-19干预效果最具临床价值及操作性的指标集合,对证据评估和决策具有重要意义。随着对疾病认知的不断深入和COS-COVID应用的反馈,课题组将对本核心指标集进行进一步完善并更新。

Retrieval,reporting and methodological characteristics for systematic reviews/meta-analyses of animal models:a meta-epidemiological study

The study aimed to analyze the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews(SRs)/meta-analyses(MAs)of animal models to provide references for later studies and avoid the waste of medical resources.EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to November 2017,with no language restriction.Two reviewers selected inclusion dependently and extracted the basic characteristics.Review Manager 5.3,stata 12.0,and SPSS 21 software were used to conduct analyses.A total of 46 SRs/MAs were included.The results showed that the English databases with high retrieval frequency are PubMed/MEDLINE,EMBASE,and Web of Science.67.31%(31/46)of the articles reported the search strategy in the full text or the appendix.65.22%(30/46)reported the literature screening flow diagram,and only 19.57%(9/46)reported the number of works of literature retrieved in each database.60.87%(28/46)illustrated supplement retrieval.Through 2 subgroup analyses,it was found that there were no significant differences in the quality of reports of PRISMA items.But referring to the methodological quality or reporting of PRESS items,SCI was better than that of non-SCI,while there seemed a source of funding to have no significant impact on the methodological quality or the items of PRESS.The results of PRESS,AMSTAR 2,and PRISMA were correlated,and the correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 was strong.These results demonstrated that search strategies of animal model SRs/MAs are still not enough comprehensive,report specification and methodological quality still need to be ameliorated.To show users the scientificity and rigor of the study,future research should focus on these various guidelines like PRESS,PRISMA,and AMSTAR 2 checklists that have been issued,it can help to increase the value of research and improve the utilization of medical resources.

Meta-Analysis of Trials Comparing Gemcitabine and Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin for Treatment in Women with Progressive or Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects ofgemcitabine versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patientswith progressive or recurrent ovarian cancer.METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search toidentify all randomized controlled trials comparing gemcitabineand pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for progressive orrecurrent ovarian cancer. Trial data were reviewed and extractedindependently by 2 reviewers. We evaluated the quality of theincluded studies using the Handbook 5.0 recommend standardsand then analyzed data by Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.0.RESULTS Two trials which included a total of 348 patients wereanalyzed. The results of meta-analysis showed that gemcitabineimproved disease control rates significantly better than pegylatedliposomal doxorubicin. A greater number of patients receivinggemcitabine experienced neutropenia compared with patientsreceiving pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; however, hand-footsyndrome and mucositis were more severe in patients receivingpegylated liposomal doxorubicin.CONCLUSION Gemcitabine provided a limited advantagecompared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. There existsan urgent need for more high-quality, multicenter, adequaterandomized, controlled clinical trials for comparing gemcitabinewith pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients withprogressive/recurrent ovarian cancer.

A protocol for the reporting and methodological quality of robotic surgery case reports

背景:机器人手术是一种复杂且新兴的外科干预方法。近来机器人手术病例报告数量不断增加,但其报告和方法质量尚不清楚。方法:本文采用高特异度检索策略检索PubMed数据库去收集机器人手术相关病例报告,检索时间限定为2012年1月1日至2018年8月1日。用Microsoft Excel 2016生成随机数,并根据我们的纳入标准选择100个合适的机器人手术病例报告。采用数据提取表提取包括第一作者姓名,发表年份,期刊名称等信息。CARE指南和JBI检查表将被分别用于评价纳入病例报告的报告质量和方法学质量。数据提取和质量评价将由独立的两位作者完成,任何分歧将通过讨论或咨询第三个作者解决。同时将根据提取的信息进行分层分析。使用Review Manager 5.3软件(倒方差随机模型)合并与呈现分层分析的结果。结果:该项研究目前正在进行中,未来会将研究结果发表在同行评审的期刊上。结论:本研究将提供机器人手术病例报告的报告质量与方法学质量的证据,并为今后的病例报告提供借鉴与参考,但不仅限于机器人手术病例报告的报告。伦理与传播:由于本研究是基于已发表的机器人手术病例报告文献,因此,不需要伦理审查和患者知情同意。该研究结果将会提交给同行评审的期刊发表。

Accuracy of baseline low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:Screening using low-dose computed tomography(LDCT)is a more effective approach and has the potential to detect lung cancer more accurately.We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the accuracy of population-based screening studies primarily assessing baseline LDCT screening for lung cancer.Methods:MEDLINE,Excerpta Medica Database,and Web of Science were searched for articles published up to April 10,2022.According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,the data of true positives,false-positives,false negatives,and true negatives in the screening test were extracted.Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the literature.A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity.The area under the curve(AUC)was calculated by using hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristics analysis.Heterogeneity between studies was measured using the Higgins I 2 statistic,and publication bias was evaluated using a Deeks’funnel plot and linear regression test.Results:A total of 49 studies with 157,762 individuals were identified for the final qualitative synthesis;most of them were from Europe and America(38 studies),ten were from Asia,and one was from Oceania.The recruitment period was 1992 to 2018,and most of the subjects were 40 to 75 years old.The analysis showed that the AUC of lung cancer screening by LDCT was 0.98(95%CI:0.96-0.99),and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 0.97(95%CI:0.94-0.98)and 0.87(95%CI:0.82-0.91),respectively.The funnel plot and test results showed that there was no significant publication bias among the included studies.Conclusions:Baseline LDCT has high sensitivity and specificity as a screening technique for lung cancer.However,long-term follow-up of the whole study population(including those with a negative baseline screening result)should be performed to enhance the accuracy of LDCT screening.

早期活动对机械通气患者病死率影响的累积Meta分析

目的应用累积Meta分析方法评价早期活动对ICU机械通气患者病死率的影响。方法计算机检索中国生物医学文献数据库、中国学术期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science Cochrane Library数据库,搜集关于ICU机械通气患者进行早期活动的随机对照试验,检索时限为建库至2018年12月30日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,按发表时间顺序进行累积Meta分析,同时采用试验序贯分析方法,评价研究结果的可靠性及真实性。结果共纳入16项研究,包括1 928例患者。累积Meta分析结果显示,早期活动对ICU机械通气患者ICU住院期间的病死率累积效应值为[OR=1.43,95%CI(0.83,2.48)],住院期间病死率累积效应值为[OR=0.92,95%CI(0.72,1.18)],试验序贯分析结果显示,累计的信息量没有穿过传统界值,也没有跨过试验序贯分析界值,且未达到期望信息量(5064例),因此,可能试验组和对照组疗效差异无统计学意义,仍需要更多的试验来证明。结论现有证据显示,早期活动不增加机械通气患者的病死率。受纳入研究数量和质量的限制,上述结论尚需开展更多研究予以证实。