BACKGROUND Heart failure(HF),a common cardiovascular condition,is characterized by significant morbidity and mortality.While traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)is often used as a complementary approach in HF management,...BACKGROUND Heart failure(HF),a common cardiovascular condition,is characterized by significant morbidity and mortality.While traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)is often used as a complementary approach in HF management,systematic evalua-tions of its impact on clinical outcomes,TCM syndrome scores,and B-type natriuretic peptide(BNP)levels are lacking.This study fills this gap through a comprehensive analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)focusing on TCM for HF treatment.It encompasses an assessment of methodological quality,a meta-analysis,and an evaluation of evidence quality based on established standards.The results offer crucial insights into the potential advantages and constraints of TCM in HF management.RCTs on TCM for HF treatment published since the establishment of the database were searched in four Chinese and English databases,including China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Wanfang,VIP Information Chinese Science and Technology Journal,and PubMed.Methodological quality was assessed for the included studies with the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool,and the meta-analysis and publication bias assessment was performed with the RevMan5.3 software.Finally,the quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE criteria.RESULTS A total of 1098 RCTs were initially retrieved.After screening,16 RCTs were finally included in our study,which were published between 2020 and 2023.These RCTs involved 1660 HF patients,including 832 in the TCM group[TCM combined with conventional Western medicine(CMW)treatment]and 828 in the CWM group(CWM treatment).The course of treatments varied from 1 wk to 3 months.TCM syndrome differentiation was analyzed in 11 of the included RCTs.In all included RCTs,outcome indicators included comprehensive clinical outcomes,TCM syndrome scores,and BNP levels.The meta-analysis results showed significant differences between the TCM and CWM groups in terms of comprehensive clinical outcomes[risk ratio=-0.54;95%confidence interval(CI)=-0.61,-0.47;P<0.00001],TCM syndrome scores[weighted mean difference(WMD)=-142.07;95%CI=-147.56,-136.57;P<0.00001],and BNP levels(WMD=-142.07;95%CI=-147.56,-136.57;P<0.00001).According to the GRADE criteria,RCTs where"TCM improves clinical comprehensive outcomes"were rated as low-quality evidence,and RCTs where"TCM reduces TCM syndrome scores"or"TCM decreases BNP levels"were rated as medium-quality evidence.CONCLUSION TCM combined with CWM treatment effectively improves comprehensive clinical outcomes and diminishes TCM syndrome scores and BNP levels in HF patients.Given the low and medium quality of the included RCTs,the application of these results should be cautious.展开更多
目的比较BISAP评分与Ranson’s评分在预测急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)的严重度及病死率方面的运用价值。方法以2007年6月到2010年10月入住本院的AP患者为研究对象,资料完整诊断明确者共有652例,采用BISAP(the bedside index for ...目的比较BISAP评分与Ranson’s评分在预测急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)的严重度及病死率方面的运用价值。方法以2007年6月到2010年10月入住本院的AP患者为研究对象,资料完整诊断明确者共有652例,采用BISAP(the bedside index for severity in AP)评分与Ranson’s评分比较,受试者工作特性曲线(receiver-operating curve,ROC)行回顾性分析,在预计AP的严重度及病死率方面的差异。结果在652例患者中,通过发病48 h内出现器官衰竭确定为重症者108例(16.6%),共死亡21例(3.2%),BISAP评分≥3分的44例(6.7%),入院48 h内Ranson’s评分≥3分者213例(32.7%)。BISAP与Ranson’s评分二者在评价预后方面的差异有统计学意义,其中严重度的曲线下面积BISAP、Ranson’s评分系统分别为:0.846(95%CI 0.808~0.883),0.771(95%CI 0.722~0.820);死亡率分别是:0.809(95%CI 0.699~0.920),0.762(95%CI 0.638~0.885)。结论 BISAP评分系统在急性胰腺炎早期,针对患者严重度、死亡率的预后评估的准确性明显高于Ranson’s评分,是目前最简易、及时、连续性强并且对患者而言经济花费少的评分系统,可在临床广泛推广。展开更多
BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index ...BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Glasgow score,harmless acute pancreatitis score(HAPS),Ranson’s score,and sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)evaluate AP severity and predict mortality.AIM To evaluate these indices'utility in predicting severity,intensive care unit(ICU)admission,and mortality.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 653 patients with AP from July 2009 to September 2016 was performed.The demographic,clinical profile,and patient outcomes were collected.SAP was defined as per the revised Atlanta classification.Values for APACHE II score,BISAP,HAPS,and SOFA within 24 h of admission were retrospectively obtained based on laboratory results and patient evaluation recorded on a secure hospital-based online electronic platform.Data with<10%missing data was imputed via mean substitution.Other patient information such as demographics,disease etiology,and patient outcomes were also derived from electronic medical records.RESULTS The mean age was 58.7±17.5 years,with 58.7%males.Gallstones(n=404,61.9%),alcohol(n=38,5.8%),and hypertriglyceridemia(n=19,2.9%)were more common aetiologies.81(12.4%)patients developed SAP,20(3.1%)required ICU admission,and 12(1.8%)deaths were attributed to SAP.Ranson’s score and APACHE-II demonstrated the highest sensitivity in predicting SAP(92.6%,80.2%respectively),ICU admission(100%),and mortality(100%).While SOFA and BISAP demonstrated lowest sensitivity in predicting SAP(13.6%,24.7%respectively),ICU admission(40.0%,25.0%respectively)and mortality(50.0%,25.5%respectively).However,SOFA demonstrated the highest specificity in predicting SAP(99.7%),ICU admission(99.2%),and mortality(98.9%).SOFA demonstrated the highest positive predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and overall accuracy in predicting SAP,ICU admission,and mortality.SOFA and Ranson’s score demonstrated the highest area under receiver-operator curves at 48 h in predicting SAP(0.966,0.857 respectively),ICU admission(0.943,0.946 respectively),and mortality(0.968,0.917 respectively).CONCLUSION The SOFA and 48-h Ranson’s scores accurately predict severity,ICU admission,and mortality in AP,with more favorable statistics for the SOFA score.展开更多
目的比较BISAP评分与Ranson评分在预测急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)的严重程度、死亡结局方面的应用价值。方法运用BISAP(bedside index for severity in AP)评分与Ranson评分对124例AP患者进行回顾性评分,比较轻症组与重症组、...目的比较BISAP评分与Ranson评分在预测急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)的严重程度、死亡结局方面的应用价值。方法运用BISAP(bedside index for severity in AP)评分与Ranson评分对124例AP患者进行回顾性评分,比较轻症组与重症组、死亡组与存活组的评分差异,比较高分组与低分组之间重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)发生率、病死率的差异。结果重症组与轻症组、死亡组与存活组的BISAP及Ranson评分差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。对于Ranson高分组(≥3分)和低分组(<3分)患者SAP发生率间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),两组病死率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对于BISAP高分组(≥3分)与低分组(<3分)的SAP及病死率间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论 BISAP评分与Ranson评分对于判断AP严重程度均具有重要参考意义。BISAP简便易行,能够早期对AP患者进行死亡风险评估。展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Heart failure(HF),a common cardiovascular condition,is characterized by significant morbidity and mortality.While traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)is often used as a complementary approach in HF management,systematic evalua-tions of its impact on clinical outcomes,TCM syndrome scores,and B-type natriuretic peptide(BNP)levels are lacking.This study fills this gap through a comprehensive analysis of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)focusing on TCM for HF treatment.It encompasses an assessment of methodological quality,a meta-analysis,and an evaluation of evidence quality based on established standards.The results offer crucial insights into the potential advantages and constraints of TCM in HF management.RCTs on TCM for HF treatment published since the establishment of the database were searched in four Chinese and English databases,including China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Wanfang,VIP Information Chinese Science and Technology Journal,and PubMed.Methodological quality was assessed for the included studies with the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool,and the meta-analysis and publication bias assessment was performed with the RevMan5.3 software.Finally,the quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE criteria.RESULTS A total of 1098 RCTs were initially retrieved.After screening,16 RCTs were finally included in our study,which were published between 2020 and 2023.These RCTs involved 1660 HF patients,including 832 in the TCM group[TCM combined with conventional Western medicine(CMW)treatment]and 828 in the CWM group(CWM treatment).The course of treatments varied from 1 wk to 3 months.TCM syndrome differentiation was analyzed in 11 of the included RCTs.In all included RCTs,outcome indicators included comprehensive clinical outcomes,TCM syndrome scores,and BNP levels.The meta-analysis results showed significant differences between the TCM and CWM groups in terms of comprehensive clinical outcomes[risk ratio=-0.54;95%confidence interval(CI)=-0.61,-0.47;P<0.00001],TCM syndrome scores[weighted mean difference(WMD)=-142.07;95%CI=-147.56,-136.57;P<0.00001],and BNP levels(WMD=-142.07;95%CI=-147.56,-136.57;P<0.00001).According to the GRADE criteria,RCTs where"TCM improves clinical comprehensive outcomes"were rated as low-quality evidence,and RCTs where"TCM reduces TCM syndrome scores"or"TCM decreases BNP levels"were rated as medium-quality evidence.CONCLUSION TCM combined with CWM treatment effectively improves comprehensive clinical outcomes and diminishes TCM syndrome scores and BNP levels in HF patients.Given the low and medium quality of the included RCTs,the application of these results should be cautious.
文摘BACKGROUND Acute pancreatitis(AP)is a common surgical condition,with severe AP(SAP)potentially lethal.Many prognostic indices,including;acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score(APACHE II),bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis(BISAP),Glasgow score,harmless acute pancreatitis score(HAPS),Ranson’s score,and sequential organ failure assessment(SOFA)evaluate AP severity and predict mortality.AIM To evaluate these indices'utility in predicting severity,intensive care unit(ICU)admission,and mortality.METHODS A retrospective analysis of 653 patients with AP from July 2009 to September 2016 was performed.The demographic,clinical profile,and patient outcomes were collected.SAP was defined as per the revised Atlanta classification.Values for APACHE II score,BISAP,HAPS,and SOFA within 24 h of admission were retrospectively obtained based on laboratory results and patient evaluation recorded on a secure hospital-based online electronic platform.Data with<10%missing data was imputed via mean substitution.Other patient information such as demographics,disease etiology,and patient outcomes were also derived from electronic medical records.RESULTS The mean age was 58.7±17.5 years,with 58.7%males.Gallstones(n=404,61.9%),alcohol(n=38,5.8%),and hypertriglyceridemia(n=19,2.9%)were more common aetiologies.81(12.4%)patients developed SAP,20(3.1%)required ICU admission,and 12(1.8%)deaths were attributed to SAP.Ranson’s score and APACHE-II demonstrated the highest sensitivity in predicting SAP(92.6%,80.2%respectively),ICU admission(100%),and mortality(100%).While SOFA and BISAP demonstrated lowest sensitivity in predicting SAP(13.6%,24.7%respectively),ICU admission(40.0%,25.0%respectively)and mortality(50.0%,25.5%respectively).However,SOFA demonstrated the highest specificity in predicting SAP(99.7%),ICU admission(99.2%),and mortality(98.9%).SOFA demonstrated the highest positive predictive value,positive likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,and overall accuracy in predicting SAP,ICU admission,and mortality.SOFA and Ranson’s score demonstrated the highest area under receiver-operator curves at 48 h in predicting SAP(0.966,0.857 respectively),ICU admission(0.943,0.946 respectively),and mortality(0.968,0.917 respectively).CONCLUSION The SOFA and 48-h Ranson’s scores accurately predict severity,ICU admission,and mortality in AP,with more favorable statistics for the SOFA score.
文摘目的比较BISAP评分与Ranson评分在预测急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)的严重程度、死亡结局方面的应用价值。方法运用BISAP(bedside index for severity in AP)评分与Ranson评分对124例AP患者进行回顾性评分,比较轻症组与重症组、死亡组与存活组的评分差异,比较高分组与低分组之间重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)发生率、病死率的差异。结果重症组与轻症组、死亡组与存活组的BISAP及Ranson评分差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。对于Ranson高分组(≥3分)和低分组(<3分)患者SAP发生率间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),两组病死率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对于BISAP高分组(≥3分)与低分组(<3分)的SAP及病死率间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论 BISAP评分与Ranson评分对于判断AP严重程度均具有重要参考意义。BISAP简便易行,能够早期对AP患者进行死亡风险评估。