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.

Ethnopharmacological relevance: Tanreqing injection (TRQI) is an intravenous herbal preparation derived from 5 types of traditional Chinese medicines including Scutellariae Radix, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos, Forsythiae Fructus, bear bile powder and goral horn, incorporating baicalin, chlorogenic acid, ursodeoxycholic acid, and goose deoxycholic acid and other compounds known for anti-inflammatory properties, is widely used in China to treat cough caused by acute trachea-bronchitis disease (ATB). Aim of the study: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Tanreqing injection (TRQI) with and without Western medicine (WM) for cough caused by acute trachea-bronchitis (ATB). Materials and methods: We systematically searched eight databases, including CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and WanFang, from inception to August 2023 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on TRQI for cough caused by ATB. The critical outcomes of interest were time to symptom disappearance, including time for cough symptom to disappear and time to improve cough and sputum production. Important outcomes included symptom disappearance rate, adverse events (AEs) and lung function. We carried out random-effects meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.4 and assessed the certainty of evidence utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: A total of 2872 citations were identified by our search, of which 26 eligible RCTs enrolled 2731 participants. Low to moderate certainty evidence showed that when compared with WM, TRQI plus WM treatment was associated with a favorable effect on the time for cough symptom to disappear (MD-2.21 d, 95% CI-2.64 to-1.78), time to improve cough and sputum production (MD-0.68 d, 95% CI-0.83 to-0.53), symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55), forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (MD 0.38 L, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; MD 2.92%, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.56, respectively). In terms of AEs, there was no association between TRQI plus WM and WM (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.21; low-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence showed that TRQI alone was associated with reduced time to improve cough and sputum (MD-0.14 d, 95% CI-0.26 to-0.02) and increased symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.88; low certainty evidence) compared to WM.

Objectives: To identify barriers and facilitators of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) implementation, and map those factors to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and behavior change wheel (BCW).Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Two investigators independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality. The identified barriers and facilitators of CPG implementation were categorized and mapped to the TDF domains and BCW components.Results: Thirty-seven studies were included, and 193 barriers and 140 facilitators were identified. Intrinsic aspects (35 barriers and 28 facilitators) mainly included the CPGs' impracticality, complexity, and inaccessibility. Extrinsic aspects (158 barriers and 113 facilitators) mainly included lack of resources, training, funding, or awareness of CPG content in barriers; audits and feedback; strong leadership and management support; and educating and training about CPGs in facilitators. Environmental context and resources (n 5 97, 19.48%) were the most reported barriers in TDF domains. Physical opportunity and social opportunity were the most frequently mentioned models inConclusion: Multiple barriers and facilitators for healthcare CPG implementation are identified, with further links to TDF and BCW. Future knowledge translation strategies should be developed accordingly in specified health care settings. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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.

BackgroundStudies of the associations between soft drinks and the risk of cancer showed inconsistent results. No previous published systematic reviews and meta-analysis has investigated a dose-response association between exposure dose and cancer risk or assessed the certainty of currently available evidence. Therefore, we aim to demonstrate the associations and assessed the certainty of the evidence to show our confidence in the associations.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to Jun 2022, to include relevant prospective cohort studies. We used a restricted cubic spline model to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis and calculated the absolute effect estimates to present the results. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsForty-two articles including on 37 cohorts enrolled 4,518,547 participants were included. With low certainty evidence, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 17% greater risk of breast cancer, a 10% greater risk of colorectal cancer, a 30% greater risk of biliary tract cancer, and a 10% greater risk of prostate cancer; increased consumption of artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs)re per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 16% greater risk of leukemia; increased consumption of 100% fruit juice per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 31% greater risk of overall cancer, 22% greater risk of melanoma, 2% greater risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and 29% greater risk of thyroid cancer. The associations with other specific cancer were no significant. We found linear dose-response associations between consumption of SSBs and the risk of breast and kidney cancer, and between consumption of ASBs and 100% fruit juices and the risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsAn increment in consumption of SSBs of 250 mL/day was positively associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, and biliary tract cancer. Fruit juices consumption was also positively associated with the risk of overall cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. The magnitude of absolute effects, however, was small and mainly based on low or very low certainty of evidence. The association of ASBs consumption with specific cancer risk was uncertain.

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.