ObjectiveTo systematically summarise acupuncture-related Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs)’s clinical and methodological characteristics and critically appraise their methodology quality.DesignWe summarised the characteristics of the guidelines and recommendations and evaluated their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.Data sourcesNine databases were searched from 1 January 2010 to 20 September 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included the latest version of acupuncture CPGs, which must have used at least one systematic review addressing the benefits and harms of alternative care options to inform acupuncture recommendations.Data extraction and synthesisReviewers, working in pairs, independently screened and extracted data. When there are statistical differences among types of CPGs, we reported the data by type in the text, but when not, we reported the overall data.ResultsOf the 133 eligible guidelines, musculoskeletal and connective tissue diseases proved the most commonly addressed therapeutic areas. According to the AGREE II instrument, the CPG was moderate quality in the domain of clarity of scope and purpose, clarity of presentation, the rigour of development, stakeholder involvement and low quality in editorial independence, and applicability. The study identified 433 acupuncture-related recommendations; 380 recommended the use of acupuncture, 28 recommended against the use of acupuncture and 25 considered acupuncture but did not make recommendations. Of the 303 recommendations that used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine the strength of recommendations, 152 were weak recommendations, 131 were strong recommendations, of which 104 were supported by low or very low certainty evidence (discordant recommendations).ConclusionIn the past 10 years, a large number of CPGs addressing acupuncture interventions exist. Although these guidelines may be as or more rigorous than many others, considerable room for improvement remains.

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1 2020 to September 2 2022. We included studies that measured the sensitivity, specificity or both qualities of a COVID-19 serological test and a reference standard of a viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR). The risk of bias was assessed by using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The primary outcomes included overall sensitivity and specificity, as stratified by the methods of serological testing [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)] and immunoglobulin classes (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within the subgroups, as defined by study or participant characteristics, which included the time from the onset of symptoms, testing via commercial kits or an in-house assay, antigen target, clinical setting, serological kit as the index test and the type of specimen for the RT–PCR reference test.ResultsEight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five references were identified and 169 studies included. Overall, we judged the risk of bias to be high in 47.9 % (81/169) of the studies, and a low risk of applicability concerns was found in 100% (169/169) of the studies. For each method of testing, the pooled sensitivity of the ELISAs ranged from 81 to 82%, with sensitivities ranging from 69 to 70% for the LFIAs and 77% to 79% for the CLIAs. Among the evaluated tests, IgG (80–81%)-based tests exhibited better sensitivities than IgM-based tests (66–68%). IgG/IgM-based CLIA had the highest sensitivity [87% (86–88%)]. All of the tests displayed high specificity (97–98%). Heterogeneity was observed in all of the analyses. The detection of nucleocapsid protein (77–80%) as the antigen target was found to offer higher sensitivity results than surface protein detection (66–68%). Sensitivity was higher in the in-house assays (78–79%) than in the commercial kits (47–48%).ConclusionAmong the evaluated tests, ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity than did the LFIA. IgG-based tests had higher sensitivity than IgM-based tests, and combined IgG/IgM test-based CLIA tests had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The type of sample, serological kit and timing of use of the specific tests were associated with the diagnostic accuracy. Due to the limitations of the serological tests, other techniques should be quickly approved to provide guidance for the correct diagnosis of COVID-19.

Purpose Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been increasingly used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, the superiority of combination therapy to TACE monotherapy remains controversial. Therefore, here we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE plus TKIs in patients with uHCC. Methods We searched four databases for eligible studies. The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP), while the secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), tumor response rates, and adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were collected for TTP and OS, and the data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis models in STATA software. OR and 95% CIs were used to estimate dichotomous variables (complete remission[CR], partial remission[PR], stable disease[SD], progressive disease[PD], objective response rate[ORR], disease control rate[DCR], and AEs) using RStudio’s random-effects model. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results The meta-analysis included 30 studies (9 RCTs, 21 observational studies) with 8246 patients. We judged the risk of bias as low in 44.4% (4/9) of the RCTs and high in 55.6% (5/9) of the RCTs. All observational studies were considered of high quality, with a NOS score of at least 6. Compared with TACE alone or TACE plus placebo, TACE combined with TKIs was superior in prolonging TTP (combined HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.80), OS (combined HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49–0.67), and objective response rate (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.23–3.67) in patients with uHCC. However, TACE plus TKIs caused a higher incidence of AEs, especially hand-foot skin reactions (OR 87.17%, 95%CI 42.88–177.23), diarrhea (OR 18.13%, 95%CI 9.32–35.27), and hypertension (OR 12.24%, 95%CI 5.89–25.42). Conclusions Our meta-analysis found that TACE plus TKIs may be beneficial for patients with uHCC in terms of TTP, OS, and tumor response rates. However, combination therapy is also associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse reactions. Therefore, we must evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of combination therapy. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022298003.

Objective: To explore the effect and clinical value of personalized nursing intervention according to Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) on the quality of life in elderly patients with chronic diseases. Methods: A total of 300 elderly patients with chronic diseases were randomly divided into control group (n=150) and observation group (n=150). The patients in the control group were treated with routine nursing. On the basis of routine nursing, the observation group was treated with personalized nursing intervention based on CGA. Before intervention and at six months after discharged, two groups were assessed by using the quality of life scale, and their effect on quality of life and satisfaction rate of treatment and nursing work were compared before and after the intervention. Results: After the intervention, the scores in the elderly patients with the observation group in physiology, psychology, independence, social relations, environment, and general quality of life were higher than those of the control group (t=4.998, 4.937, 7.174, 5.106, 4.087, all P<0.05), and differences were statistically significant, and nursing satisfaction at six months after discharged were significantly higher than that of the control group (χ 2 =5.556, P<0.05). Conclusion: Personalized nursing intervention based on CGA can improve the nursing of elderly patients with chronic diseases and improve the satisfaction of patient during hospitalization and nursing after discharged, then improve the quality of life of patients.