Existing reporting checklists lack the necessary level of detail and comprehensiveness to be used in guidelines on Chinese patent medicines (CPM). This study aims to develop a reporting guidance for CPM guidelines based on the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We extracted information from CPM guidelines, existing reporting standards for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and the RIGHT statement and its extensions to form the initial pool of reporting items for CPM guidelines. Seventeen experts from diverse dis-ciplines participated in two rounds of Delphi process to refine and clarify the items. Finally, 18 authoritative consultants in the field of TCM and reporting guidelines reviewed and approved the RIGHT for CPM checklist. We added 16 new items and modified two items of the original RIGHT statement to form the RIGHT for CPM checklist, which contains 51 items grouped into seven sections and 23 topics. The new and revised items are distributed across four sections (Basic information, Background, Evidence, and Recommendations) and seven topics: title/subtitle (one new and one revised item), Registration information (one new item), Brief description of the health problem (four new items), Guideline development groups (one revised item), Health care questions (two new items), Recommendations (two new items), and Rationale/explanation for recommendations (six new items). The RIGHT for CPM checklist is committed to providing users with guidance for detailed, comprehensive and transparent reporting, and help practitioners better understand and implement CPM guidelines.

BackgroundActive workstations have been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sedentary time. This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess and compare the overall efficacy of active workstation interventions according to type and concomitant strategy for reducing work-specific sitting time in office workers.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception until May 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of active workstations with or without concomitant strategies for reducing occupational sedentary time in office workers. The risk of bias of the RCTs included in this study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook. An NMA with STATA 15.1 was used to construct a network diagram, league figures, and the final surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 23 eligible studies including eight different types of interventions with 1428 office workers were included. NMA results showed that compared to a typical desk, multicomponent intervention (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.17, - 0.82; SUCRA = 72.4%), sit-stand workstation + promotion (Reminders of rest breaks, posture variation, or incidental office activity) (SMD = - 1.49; 95%CI - 2.42, - 0.55; SUCRA = 71.0%), treadmill workstation + promotion (SMD = - 1.29; 95%CI - 2.51, - 0.07; SUCRA = 61.6%), and sit-stand workstation (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.64, - 0.56; SUCRA = 50.2%) were effective in reducing occupational sedentary time for office workers.ConclusionsMulticomponent intervention, sit-stand workstation + promotion, treadmill workstation + promotion, and sit-stand workstation appear to be effective in reducing work-specific sedentary time for office workers. Furthermore, multicomponent interventions and active workstations + promotion better reduced work-specific sedentary time than active workstation alone. However, the overall certainty of the evidence was low.

Objectives: (i) To analyze trends and gaps in evidence of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures by evidence mapping; (ii) to conduct a cross-sectional survey on the use of the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SR/MAs) of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. Study Design and Setting: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched until July 7, 2022. SR/MAs investigated health effects of pollutants and extreme temperatures were included.Results: Out of 22,658 studies, 312 SR/MAs were included in evidence mapping, and the effects of pollutants on cancer and congenital malformations were new research hotspots. Among 16 SR/MAs involving 108 outcomes that were rated using GRADE, the certainty of evidence was mostly downgraded for inconsistency (50, 42.7%), imprecision (33, 28.2%), and risk of bias (24, 20.5%). In contrast, concentration-response gradient (26, 65.0%) was the main upgrade factor.Conclusion: GRADE is not widely used in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures. The certainty of evidence is generally low, mainly because of the serious inconsistency or imprecision. Use of the GRADE in SR/MAs of health effects on pollutants and extreme temperatures should strengthen.& COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) is a major complication of pregnancy and is the second leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. The etiology of IUGR is multifactorial and the maternal factors are easily identifiable and modifiable. The present study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to identify the association between various maternal factors and IUGR. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CIHNAL Plus, CNKI, VIP database, CBM, and WanFang database) were searched from their inception until July 2020. Eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of the retrieved articles were conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool were used to evaluate the quality of included studies. The outcomes of study were calculated by OR with 95%CI. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42020210615). A total of 15 studies were included, with a sample size range from 152 to 9372. The quality of included studies ranged from moderate to high. The pooled results identified seven factors: smoking (OR = 1.62, 95%CI 1.38-1.90), primiparity (OR = 1.64, 95%CI 1.20-2.24), and prepregnancy.BMI < 18.5 (OR = 1.98, 95%CI 1.29-3.03), anemia (OR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.44-2.82), hypoproteinemia (OR = 2.91, 95%CI 1.94-4.36), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR = 3.45, 95%CI 1.80-6.58), and maternal gestational weight gain (OR = 2.51, 95%CI 1.88-3.35). The present study identified several maternal factors for IUGR: smoking, primiparity, prepregnancy BMI < 18.5, poor gestational weight gain, PIH, anemia, and hypoproteinemia. The result could serve to generate risk factors prediction models, improve the management and education for child-bearing or early pregnant women.

Background: Based on randomized controlled trials, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare treatment effects across varenicline and related smoking interventions. Methods: English databases were screened for randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of varenicline as treatment for smoking. The risk of bias in included trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the tobacco treatment effects of different interventions. Results: Thirty-four studies involving 26,130 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. Varenicline and 11 other interventions were reported, yielding 66 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline monotherapy or its combination with other interventions were superior in achieving smoking cessation compared to bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo. Furthermore, compared to the varenicline, evident abstinence superiority was found in varenicline + bupropion (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [1.02, 2.18]). Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that varenicline + bupropion has the highest probability to become the best intervention. Conclusions: Varenicline monotherapy increased the odds of smoking cessation further than bupropion monotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, counselling, and placebo, while varenicline combined with other interventions may even achieve a better abstinence effect. More credible evidence has been reported indicating that the combination of varenicline and bupropion is a superior treatment for smoking.

Objective: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. Methods: English databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation. The risk of bias for the included trials was assessed using Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis, and GRADE approach was used to assess the evidence credibility on the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Results: A total of 159 studies involving 60,285 smokers were included in the network meta-analysis. The analysis involved 15 interventions and which yielded 105 pairs of comparisons. Network meta-analysis showed that varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other monotherapies, such as nicotine replacement therapy [Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.16, 1.73)] and bupropion [OR = 1.52, 95% CI (1.22, 1.89)]. Furthermore, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy in achieving smoking cessation, such as varenicline plus bupropion over bupropion [OR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.11, 3.61)], varenicline plus nicotine replacement therapy over nicotine replacement therapy [OR = 1.84, 95% CI (1.07, 3.18)], and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine over naltrexone [OR = 6.29, 95% CI (1.59, 24.90)]. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusion: Most pharmacological interventions demonstrated a benefit in smoking cessation compared with placebo, whether monotherapy or combination therapy. Moreover, confirmed evidence suggested that some combination treatments, such as varenicline plus bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy plus mecamylamine have a higher probability of being the best smoking cessation in

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of single-patient (N-of-1) trials and protocols based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement and the standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT) extension and elaboration for N-of-1 trials (SPENT) checklist to examine the factors that influenced reporting quality. Methods Four electronic databases were searched to identify N-of-1 trials and protocols from 2015 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two reviewers. We calculated the overall scores based on binary responses in which "Yes" was scored as 1 (if the item was fully reported), and "No" was scored as 0 (if the item was not clearly reported or not definitely stated). Results A total of 78 publications (55 N-of-1 trials and 23 protocols) were identified. The mean reporting score (SD) of the N-of-1 trials and protocols were 29.24 (0.89) and 29.61 (1.83), respectively. For the items related to outcomes, sample size, allocation concealment protocol, and informed consent materials, the reporting quality was low. Our results showed that the year of publication (t = -0.793, p = 0.872 for the trials and t = 1.352, p = 0.623 for the protocols) and the impact factor of the journal (t = 1.416, p = 0.619 for the trials and t = 0.359, p = 0.667 for the protocols) were not factors associated with better reporting quality. Conclusion With the publication of the CENT 2015 statement and the SPENT 2019 checklist, authors should adhere to the relevant reporting guidelines and improve the reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols.

Objective: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to investigate the effect of varenicline (VAR), bupropion (BUP), and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on smoking cessation. Methods: Eight databases were searched in May 2021, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using varenicline, bupropion, or NRT (single or combined) for smoking cessation were included. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook tool. Stata 15.1 software was used to perform NMA, and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). Findings: Twenty RCTs involving 16,702 smokers were included. The risk of bias results showed that 10 RCTs were rated as high, three were low, and seven were unclear. A total of 21 pairs were compared based on seven interventions. The NMA showed that, compared to the placebo (PLA), the other six interventions had significant efficacy in smoking cessation, where VAR + BUP showed the best effect of all treatments (odds ratio (OR) = 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.47, 10.66]). Moreover, VAR + BUP was superior to VAR + NRT (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.07, 2.59]) and the three monotherapies (VAR, BUP, and NRT). In the monotherapies, the results of pairwise comparisons of VAR, BUP, and NRT did not show significant differences. Finally, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value indicated that VAR + BUP had the greatest probability of becoming the best intervention. Conclusions: The efficacy of VAR, BUP, and NRT alone increased the odds of smoking abstinence better than the placebo, combined interventions were superior to monotherapy, and VAR combined with other interventions had a better smoking cessation effect.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Purpose We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. Study design Living evidence-based guideline. Methods This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. Conclusion This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019, the controversy over the effectiveness, safety, and enforceability of masks used by the public has been prominent. This study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available high-quality design evidence concerning mask use during the spread of respiratory viruses and find evidence gaps. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinical trial registry, gray literature database, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in April 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. A bubble plot was designed to display information in four dimensions. Finally, twenty-one RCTs and nine SRs met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were of "Low quality" and focused on healthcare workers. Six RCTs reported adverse effects, with one implying that the cloth masks reuse may increase the infection risk. When comparing masks with usual practice, over 70% RCTs and also SRs showed that masks were "beneficial" or "probably beneficial"; however, when comparing N95 respirators with medical masks, 75% of SRs showed "no effect", whereas 50% of RCTs showed "beneficial effect". Overall, the current evidence provided by high-quality designs may be insufficient to deal with a second impact of the pandemic. Masks may be effective in interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses; however, the effect of an N95 respirator or cloth masks versus medical masks is unclear. Additional high-quality studies determining the impact of prolonged mask use on vulnerable populations (such as children and pregnant women), the possible adverse effects (such as skin allergies and shortness of breath) and optimal settings and exposure circumstances for populations to use masks are needed.