This study aimed at exploring the current development status and problems of health emergency management in China and provides a reference for improving, constructing, and implementing a public health emergency management system. Methods: Cases of major and severe public health emergencies in China were analyzed along with the relevant health emergency management literature from the last decade. Results: China's health emergency system gradually improved during the study period. Monitoring and early warning systems were significantly strengthened. Material reserves and transfer management systems were constantly improved. However, the operational efficiency of command and decision systems was low, versatile talent accounted for a relatively small proportion, and emergency fund investment was insufficient. Conclusion: Constructing a sound and scientific emergency management mechanism is a lengthy and challenging process. To establish an emergency management mode for public health emergencies that is appropriate for China, it is necessary to solve existing problems and learn from the models and experiences of developed foreign countries.

Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, has been caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We propose the protocol described below to perform an individual-patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) in order to evaluate the efficacies of different antiviral drugs to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Materials and methods We will search the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI and VIP databases from their inceptions through July 2020. There will be no restrictions on language, publication year, or publication type. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies with antiviral treatments for COVID-19 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently select studies and collect data. Risk-of-bias assessments will be completed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias scale. Primary outcome will be the COVID-19 recovery rate. We will combine aggregated data from IPD with the NMA in a single model, compare the effects of different antiviral drugs on patient-relevant efficacy, and rank the results to decide which is the most effective. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020167038.

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are the main cause of infectious complications in patients with indwelling urinary catheters (IDCs). However, the best cleaning methods for the prevention of CAUTIs have not been evaluated clearly in previous studies. Methods: An electronic database search was performed, from inception to December 2017. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials using different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs were considered. The study selection and data collection were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias scale. The primary outcome was the incidence rates of CAUTIs. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect among the different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs. Results: Thirty-three studies (6490 patients) with seven different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection were eligible for inclusion, and the data were summarized in the network meta-analysis. No evidence of heterogeneity (P > 0.05) was observed among the studies. The network meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the incidence of CAUTIs when comparing the different urethral cleaning methods versus disinfection (P > 0.05 for all). However, chlorhexidine ranked first in the results of the Bayesian analysis and is recommended for preventing CAUTIs. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences among different urethral cleaning versus disinfection methods with regard to CAUTI incidence rates.

Background Many studies had shown that prophylactic use of antibiotics could significantly reduce the intracranial infection (ICI) rate of craniotomy. However, there has been no comparison of these antibiotics. Methods An electronic database search was performed, from inception to June 102,020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) using different intravenous antibiotics (IVA) against the ICIs after craniotomy were considered. The primary outcome was the incidence rates of ICIs. An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was conducted to compare the protective effect among the diverse antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent ICIs after craniotomy. Risk of potential bias was assessed. Results A total of 3214 patients after craniotomy in 11 studies were included, 159 patients experienced postoperative ICI, including 33 patients in the antibacterial group and 126 in the control group. The calculate results of meta-analysis showed that except fusidic acid, preoperative intravenous injection of cephalosporin, clindamycin, vancomycin, and penicillin can significantly reduce the incidence of ICI after craniotomy, and ITC showed there was no statistically significance difference in the rates of post craniotomy ICI between the various antibiotics. Conclusion The current evidence shows that low-grade antibacterial drugs can be selected to prevent ICI after craniotomy, but this may be due to the limited number of studies per antibiotic. It still needs more high-quality, large sample RCT to confirm. Systemic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019133369.

No abstract