Postoperative gastrointestinal disorder (POGD) was a common complication after surgery under anesthesia. Strategies in combination with Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western medicine showed some distinct effects but standardized clinical practice guidelines were not available. Thus, a multidisciplinary expert team from various professional bodies including the Perioperative and Anesthesia Professional Committees of the Chinese Association of Integrative Medicine (CAIM), jointly with Gansu Province Clinical Research Center of Integrative Anesthesiology/Anesthesia and Pain Medical Center of Gansu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine and WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation/Chinese Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Center/Gansu Provincial Center for Medical Guideline Industry Technology/Evidence-based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, was established to develop evidence-based guidelines. Clinical questions (7 background and 12 clinical questions) were identified through literature reviews and expert consensus meetings. Based on systematic reviews/meta-analyses, evidence quality was analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of interventional measures were weighed with input from patients' preferences. Finally, 20 recommendations were developed through the Delphi-based consensus meetings. These recommendations included disease definitions, etiologies, pathogenesis, syndrome differentiation, diagnosis, and perioperative prevention and treatment.

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.

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

The worldwide spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus has become a profound threat to human health. As the use of medication without established effectiveness may result in adverse health consequences, the development of evidence-based guidelines is of critical importance for the clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This research presents methods used to develop rapid advice guidelines on treating COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). We have followed the basic approach for developing WHO rapid guidelines, including preparing, developing, disseminating and updating each process. Compared with general guidelines, this rapid advice guideline is unique in formulating the body of evidence, as the available evidence for the treatment of COVID-19 with TCM is from either indirect or observational studies, clinical first-hand data together with expert experience in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, our search of evidence not only focuses on clinical studies of treating COVID-19 with TCM but also of similar diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adopted to rate the quality of evidence and distinguish the strength of recommendations. The overall certainty of the evidence is graded as either high, moderate, low or very low, and to give either "strong" or "weak" recommendations of each TCM therapy. The output of this paper will produce the guideline on TCM for COVID-19 and will also provide some ideas for evidence collection and synthesis in the future development of rapid guidelines for COVID-19 in TCM as well as other areas.

Since the outbreak of novel coronavirus pneumonia (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19), it has rapidly spread to 187 countries, causing serious harm to the health of people and a huge social burden. However, currently, drugs specifically approved for clinical use are not available, except for vaccines against COVID-19 that are being evaluated. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is capable of performing syndrome differentiation and treatment according to the clinical manifestations of patients, and has a better ability of epidemic prevention and control. The authors comprehensively analyzed the etiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19 based on the theory of TCM, and discussed its syndrome differentiation, treatment and prevention measures so as to provide strategies and reference for the prevention and treatment with TCM. (C) 2020 Shanghai Changhai Hospital. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of guidelines for rehabilitation of post-stroke aphasia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) instrument and identify consistency of different guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken from inception to October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, and assessed eligible guidelines using the AGREE-II. Agreement among reviewers was measured by using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: From 5008 records screened, 8 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. The quality of guidelines was heterogeneous. Three guidelines were rated high (6.5) across; the highest rated domain was "scope and purpose" (median score 95.8%); the lowest rated domain was "rigor of development" (median score 67.2%). An overall high degree of agreement among reviewers to each domain was observed (ICC ranged from 0.60 to 0.99). The speech language therapy was recommended in 3 guidelines. Four guidelines described group treatment was beneficial for the continuum of care. However, other therapies for aphasia varied in the level of detail across guidelines. Conclusions: Our study indicated the quality of guidelines for post-stroke aphasia needed to be improved. Moreover, the treatment recommendations of aphasia existed discrepancy among the included guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested to pay more attention on the rigor of methodology and applicability during the process of the formulation of guideline. Future research should focus on the effectiveness, intensity, and duration of treatment measures.