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 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.

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.