Objective: To describe and record the evolution of EBM in China. Study Design and Setting: We conducted the study following the general methodology of oral history. The interviews were done at Lanzhou University, between 18th and 22 nd April 2019 using pre-defined questions. All interviews were videorecorded. Two investigators extracted and analyzed the information from the interviews independently. Results: One international expert and ten Chinese experts participated in the interviews. After the introduction of EBM in China in the mid-1990s, more than 20 EBM centres have been established. According to the interviewees, Gordon Guyatt, David Sackett and lain Chalmers are the international experts who played the most important role in the development of EBM in China. China has contributed to EBM on the international level by conducting systematic reviews, developing reporting checklists, and introducing the principles of EBM into Traditional Medicine. The Chinese Cochrane Centre and the EBM Centre of Lanzhou University were ranked the top two EBM Centres in China by the interviewees. Conclusion: EBM has been developing in China for nearly a quarter of a century. Many achievements have been reached, however, EBM is still facing many challenges in China, including shortages of funding support and personnel, as well as limited local high-quality evidence. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

(1) Background: To review the associated factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and four Chinese electronic databases were searched for observational studies that reported the associated factors of sarcopenia from inception to August 2021. Two researchers independently selected the literature, evaluated their quality, and extracted relevant data. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each associated factors of sarcopenia using random-effects/fixed-effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and the Eggers test. We performed statistical analysis using Stata 15.0 software. (3) Results: A total of 68 studies comprising 98,502 cases were included. Sociodemographic associated factors of sarcopenia among community-dwelling older adults included age (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.10-1.13), marital status (singled, divorced, or widowed) (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.08-2.28), disability for activities of daily living (ADL) (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.15-1.92), and underweight (OR = 3.78, 95% CI: 2.55-5.60). Behavioral associated factors included smoking (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.21), physical inactivity (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.48-2.01), malnutrition/malnutrition risk (OR = 2.99, 95% CI: 2.40-3.72), long (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.37-3.86) and short (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.86-5.93) sleeping time, and living alone (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.00-2.40). Disease-related associated factors included diabetes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.18-1.66), cognitive impairment (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05-2.51), heart diseases (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00-1.30), respiratory diseases (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.36), osteopenia/osteoporosis (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.63-4.57), osteoarthritis (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.23-1.44), depression (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.17-1.83), falls (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.14-1.44), anorexia (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-1.96), and anemia (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06-1.82). However, it remained unknown whether gender (female: OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.80-1.51; male: OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.96-2.34), overweight/obesity (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.44), drinking (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.01), hypertension (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84-1.14), hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.47), stroke (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.69-4.17), cancer (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.92), pain (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.20), liver disease (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91), and kidney disease (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.19-33.30) were associated with sarcopenia. (4) Conclusions: There are many sociodemographic, behavioral, and disease-related associated factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. Our view provides evidence for the early identification of high-risk individuals and the development of relevant interventions to prevent sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.

Background In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Results The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited <= 5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.

Background: N-of-1 trial is a desired and appropriate approach to assessing the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions. There have been an increasing number of N-of-1 trials for TCM published. However, a lack of preferred reporting guidance led in the general poor reporting quality of these trials. Due to the unique characteristics of TCM, the working group developed this CONSORT Extension for reporting N-of-1 Trials for Traditional Chinese Medicine (CENT for TCM) to assist TCM researchers in reporting N-of-1 trials for TCM. Methods: We registered CENT for TCM at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network (available at equator-network.org). The development was a comprehensive process through collection of the initial reporting items, two-round scientific Delphi consensus survey with 17 panelists, revision and formation of the final reporting checklist. Results: The checklist includes 25 items within six domains, eight items in which were extended and elaborated on the items of the CENT 2015 checklist. Explanation of the items were listed adequately considering the nature of TCM, introducing the concept of TCM syndrome differentiation and TCM interventions. Conclusions: CENT for TCM can be used to assess the completeness of the reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM. The working group expect that CENT for TCM could be a practical tool to enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of the design, implementation and reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM.

Background Acupuncture is widely used worldwide, and systematic reviews on acupuncture are increasingly being published. Although acupuncture systematic reviews share several essential elements with other systematic reviews, some essential information for the application of acupuncture is not covered by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Considering this, we aimed to develop an extension of the PRISMA statement for acupuncture systematic reviews. Methods We used the PRISMA statement as a starting point, and conducted this study referring to the development strategy recommended by the EQUATOR network. The initial items were collected through a wide survey among evidence users and a review of relevant studies. We conducted a three-round Delphi survey and one-day face-to-face meeting to select items and formulate the checklist. After the consensus meeting, we drafted the manuscript (including the checklist) and sent it to our advisory experts for comments, following which the checklist was refined and circulated to a group of acupuncture systematic review authors for pilot test. We also selected a sample of acupuncture systematic reviews published in 2017 to test the checklist. Results A checklist of five new sub-items (including sub items) and six modified items was formulated, involving content related to title, rationale, eligibility criteria, literature search, data extraction, and study characteristics. We clarified the rationales of the items and provided examples for each item for additional guidance. Conclusion The PRISMA for Acupuncture checklist is developed for improving the reporting of systematic reviews of acupuncture interventions.