Omicron BA.2.2 is the dominant variant in the Hong Kong outbreak since December 31, 2021. There is no study reporting the weekly symptom profile after infection. In this retrospective study, participants who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 after December 31, 2021, and registered in the telemedicine system between March 14 and May 6, 2022, were analyzed. Among registered 12 950 self‐quarantined COVID‐19‐positive patients, 11 776 symptomatic patients were included for weekly symptom profile analysis. A total of 4718 (40.1%) patients reported symptoms in the first week after a positive test, 2501 (21.2%) in the second week, 1498 (12.7%) in the third week, 1048 (8.9%) in the fourth week, and 2011 (17.1%) in over 4 weeks. Cough was the most common symptom in all participants. Patients in the first week had higher odds of reporting fever (0.206, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.161–0.263, p < 0.001) and sore throat (0.228, 95% CI: 0.208–0.252, p < 0.001). Patients in over 4 weeks had higher odds of reporting fatigue (1.263, 95% CI: 1.139–1.402, p < 0.001). Further, having at least two vaccine doses linked to lower odds of having fever (0.675, 95% CI: 0.562–0.811, p < 0.001), but not associated with the presence of cough and fatigue. Diabetic patients had higher odds of reporting diarrhea (1.637, 95% CI: 1.351–1.982, p < 0.001). Symptoms from Omicron infection may last for more than 4 weeks and symptom profiles vary from week to week. Vaccination and comorbidity affect the symptom profiles.

No abstract

Background Reporting quality is a critical issue among health sciences. Adopting the reporting guidelines has been approved to be an effective way for enhancing the reporting quality and transparency of clinical research. In 2012, we found that only 7 (7/1221, 0.6%) journals adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in China. To know the implementation status of CONSORT and other reporting guidelines about clinical studies in China. Methods A cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted. Eight medical databases were systematically searched, and 1039 medical journals published in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were included. The basic characteristics, including subject, language, publication place, journal-indexed databases, and journal impact factor were extracted. The endorsement of reporting guidelines was assessed by a modified 5-level evaluation tool, namely i) positive active, ii) positive weak, iii) passive moderate, iv) passive weak and v) none. Results Among included journals, 24.1% endorsed CONSORT, and 0.8% endorsed CONSORT extensions. For STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), STARD (An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies), CARE (CAse REport guidelines), the endorsement proportion were 17.2%, 16.6%, 16.4%, and 14.8% respectively. The endorsement proportion for SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis), AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation), and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) were below 0.7%. Conclusions Our results showed that the implementation of reporting guidelines has increased compared to ten years ago but remains sub-optimal. We suggest the following initiatives including i) enhancing the level of journal endorsement for reporting guidelines; ii) strengthening the collaboration among authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders; iii) providing training courses for stakeholders; iv) establishing bases for reporting guidelines network in China; v) adopting the endorsement of reporting guidelines in the policies of China Periodicals Association (CPA); vi) promoting Chinese medical journals into international evaluation system and publish in English.

No abstract

Background There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations. Methods In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population. Results We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics. Trial registration We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZ6XR).

No abstract