Background: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. Objective: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. Design: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. Setting: International collaboration. Participants: 44 experts. Measurements: Consensus on checklist items. Results: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. Limitation: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. Conclusion: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. Primary Funding Source: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Background: Complementary and alternative therapy is widely used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Chinese herbal medicine, JianPiYiFei (JPYF) II granules, have been shown to improve COPD patients' quality of life, however long-term effectiveness has not been examined. Purpose: To investigate whether long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective and safe for patients with stable, moderate to very severe COPD. Study design and methods: A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Eligible participants from six hospitals were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either JPYF II granules or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score during treatment. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of acute exacerbations during treatment, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), 6-minute walking test (6MWT), lung function, body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea, exercise capacity (BODE) index, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the end of treatment. Results: A total of 276 patients (138 in each group) were included in the analysis. JPYF II granules led to a significantly greater reduction in SGRQ score (-7.33 points, 95% CI -10.59 to -4.07; p < 0.0001) which reflects improved quality of life. JPYF II granules improved CAT (-3.49 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.86; p < 0.0001) and 6MWT (45.61 metres, 95% CI 20.26 to 70.95; p = 0.0005), compared with placebo. Acute exacerbations were less frequent with JPYF II granules than with placebo (0.87 vs. 1.34 events per patient; p = 0.0043). There were no significant differences between the groups in lung function, BODE index and SpO2. JPYF II granules were well tolerated and no significant adverse effects were noted. Conclusions: Long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective in moderate to very severe COPD, improving quality of life and exercise capacity, decreasing the risk of acute exacerbation, and relieving symptoms.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination. Study Design and Setting: A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received. Results: A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times. Conclusion: The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation.

Ulcerative colitis (UC), a chronic and nonspecific inflammatory disease of the intestine, has become a prevalent global health concern. This guideline aims to equip clinicians and caregivers with effective strategies for the treatment and management of adult UC patients using traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The guideline systematically evaluated contemporary evidence through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Additionally, it incorporated insights from ancient Chinese medical sources, employing the evidence grading method found in traditional TCM literature. The development process involved collaboration with multidisciplinary experts and included input from patients with UC. The guideline, based on a comprehensive review of available evidence, present 40 recommendations. They offer a condensed overview of TCM's role in understanding the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of UC, along with an assessment of the efficacy of various TCM-based treatments. TCM exhibits promising outcomes in the treatment of UC. However, to establish its efficacy conclusively, further high-quality clinical studies on TCM for UC are essential.

BackgroundAn increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).ResultsWe identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate.ConclusionsMethodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

Objectives: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. Study design and setting: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. Results: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. Conclusion: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement.

Objective: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) have an indispensable role in guiding the selection of various treatments for insomnia, however, little is known about the quality of released insomnia CPGs. This study aims to critically appraise the quality of existing insomnia CPGs and identify quality limitations. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Biology Medicine disc, and 6 databases of international guideline developing institutions were systematically searched. CPGs on the diagnosis or treatment of insomnia were included. Reviewers independently extracted basic information and development methods, and assessed methodological quality and reporting quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure the agreement among reviewers and assess inter-rater reliability. Results: Twenty-six CPGs were identified that focused on adults, children, or children with autistic spectrum disorder, patients in the intensive care unit, patients with cancer and pregnant, lactating or menopausal women. Twenty-two CPGs used nine grading systems to rate the level of evidence and strength of recommendation. 53.85% CPGs were classified as "recommended with modification" according to the AGREE II scores (ICC from 0.64 to 0.90), and 2 CPGs were "recommended". The "clarity of presentation" domain achieved the highest mean score (67.9% +/- 11.04%) but the "applicability" domain (37.1% +/- 12.67%) achieved the lowest. The average reporting rate of RIGHT items in all guidelines was 67.87%. Conclusions: The quality of guidelines varied substantially. Guideline developers should realize the importance of guideline applicability, patients' preferences and values. (c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background and Objectives: To review the efforts and progress in promoting quality and transparency of health research in China and to discuss how to improve.Methods: We focused on three different types of health research: clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, and summarized China's progress from their registration, implementation, and reporting stages.Results: In the last 3 decades, China's major works include the following: 1) For registration, the trials and CPGs registries have been set up, and released policies to mandate registration and submission of protocols for trials. 2) For implementation, multiple clinical research and EBM centers have been established. The ResMan platform for data management has been created and required researchers to share results data. 3) For reporting, the Chinese EQUATOR Center has been set up. Translations and extensions of the CONSORT, PRISMA, and RIGHT have been published. 4) For traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), specific guidelines for the registration and reporting of TCM research have been developed.Conclusion: China has made progress in promoting research quality and transparency, especially in research registration and reporting. Nevertheless, more can be done in data management and sharing for research implementation, and good publication practices in TCM.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background As systematically developed statements regarding possible courses of action, health system guidance (HSG) can assist with making decisions about addressing problems or achieving goals in health systems. However, there are conceptual and methodological challenges in HSG implementation due to the complexity of health-system policy-making, the diversity of available evidence and vast differences in contexts. To address these gaps, we aim to develop a theoretical framework for supporting HSG implementation as part of a broader effort to promote evidence-informed policy-making in health systems. Methods To develop a theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation, we will apply a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to synthesize the findings from a range of relevant literature. We will search 11 electronic databases and seven organizational websites to identify relevant published and grey literature. We will check the references of included studies and contact experts to identify additional eligible papers. Finally, we will conduct purposively sampling of the literature to fill any identified conceptual gaps. We will use relevance and five quality criteria to assess included papers. A standardized form will be developed for extracting information. We will use an interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the findings, including a constant comparative method throughout the analysis. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature screening and relevance assessment, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The principal investigator will conduct data extraction and synthesis, and a second reviewer will check the sample of extracted data for consistency and accuracy. Discussion A new theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation will be developed using a CIS approach. The HSG implementation framework could be widely used for supporting the implementation of HSG covering varied topics and in different contexts (including low-, middle- and high-income countries). In later work, we will develop a tool for supporting HSG implementation based on the theoretical framework. Registration PROSPERO CRD42020214072. Date of Registration: 14 December 2020.

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166). Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: center dot There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: center dot This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. center dot Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

Objective: To share the experience of promoting GRADE in China. Study design and setting: We designed the study and collected data on the following three aspects of the GRADE in China: the key activities related to GRADE, the main achievements of the GRADE, and potential challenges and future opportunities. Results: Three GRADE centres have been established in China since 2011. Seventeen articles of the GRADE working group have been translated and published in Chinese, and 31 articles have been written by Chinese scientists in Chinese to introduce and interpret the GRADE approach so far. More than 50 GRADE workshops and meetings have been held by GRADE centres in China, covering two-thirds of all provinces and autonomous regions of China. The percentages of societies from the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association (CMDA) that used the GRADE system to develop guidelines were 30% and 18%, respectively. Conclusion: Over the past decade, China has made progress in promoting the GRADE system and Chinese GRADE centres have made a significant contribution.

Objective: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018. Study design and setting: We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs. Results: We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the methodological and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in China and published in medical journals between 2014 and 2018. Study design and setting: We conducted a comprehensive search in multiple databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, CBM (China Biology Medicine), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data. We included all clinical practice guidelines developed in China between 2014 and 2018. The AGREE II tool and the RIGHT checklist were used to appraise the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guidelines, respectively. Results: We identified 17,188 records, and included finally 573 CPGs. Most (n=507, 88.5%) were published in Chinese, and 508 (88.7%) were about Western medicine. Only 62 (10.8%) of the guidelines used the GRADE approach. The mean overall score of methodological quality over all guidelines was 19.4%, and the mean scores for the AGREE II domains were 28.6% (Scope and purpose), 17.0% (Stakeholder involvement), 11.7% (Rigor of development), 32.2% (Clarity of presentation), 14.2% (Applicability) and 12.8% (Editorial independence). The mean overall score for reporting quality over all guidelines was 30.2%, with the following mean scores for each RIGHT domain: 55.6% (Basic information), 43.8% (Background), 14.5% (Evidence), 29.2% (Recommendations), 10.7% (Review and quality assurance), 12.6% (Funding and declaration of interest) and 8.4% (Other information). Subgroup analyses found that both the methodological and reporting quality were generally higher among CPGs that used evidence grading systems or reported receiving funding. Conclusion: Both the methodological quality and the reporting quality of CPGs developed in China have improved over time, but are still below the international average.

Chinese medicine (CM) has significant clinical effects in the treatment of trachea-bronchitis. It is of important clinical significance to formulate guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of tracheal-bronchitis based on the characteristics of TCM syndrome differentiation. The Respiratory Disease Branch of China Association of Chinese Medicine and Respiratory Disease Branch of China Medical Association of Minorities have organized and established a multidisciplinary working group, based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development and the Guideline Development Handbook for Diagnosis and Therapy of Integrative Medicine to develop this guideline. It has been developed through technical links such as clinical problem investigation, evidence collection and evaluation, Delphi method, and expert consensus meetings. Based on the current best evidence, CM intervention costs and expert experience, 25 recommendations were established to standardize the etiology and pathogenesis of tracheal-bronchitis, syndrome differentiation and treatment, prevention, and care, etc., which can be used by respiratory physicians at all levels of TCM medical institutions.

Objective: This study collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the social sciences in China and assessed their risk of bias and reporting quality. Study design and setting: Three databases were systematically searched for publications from January 2000 to June 2020 for RCTs in the social sciences published by Chinese researchers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, and reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Social and Psychological Interventions (CONSORT-SPI). Results: A total of 316 RCTs were identified, including 204 articles in English and 112 articles in Chinese. The most frequently researched interventions focused on education (33.9%), and the most frequently studied population were students (32.9%). Eighty-seven percent of RCTs had intermediate reporting quality. Twenty-four of the 43 CONSORT-SPI sub-items had a compliance rate of less than 50%. Most RCTs had an unclear risk of bias for blinding outcome assessors (84.5%), blinding participants and personnel (82.9%), allocation concealment (73.1%), and random sequence generation (68.0%). A low proportion of CONSORT-SPI items were reported and, high proportion of the papers had unclear risk of bias. Conclusion: The quality and reporting of RCTs in the social sciences needs improvement in China, especially for reporting methods and results. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias as they lacked important methodological information. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease encompassing a broad spectrum of subtypes including acute, subacute, chronic and intermittent CLE. Among these, chronic CLE can be further classified into several subclasses of lupus erythematosus (LE) such as discoid LE, verrucous LE, LE profundus, chilblain LE and Blaschko linear LE. To provide all dermatologists and rheumatologists with a practical guideline for the diagnosis, treatment and long-term management of CLE, this evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the checklist established by the international Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group and was registered at the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform. With the joint efforts of the Asian Dermatological Association (ADA), the Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AADV) and the Lupus Erythematosus Research Center of Chinese Society of Dermatology (CSD), a total of 25 dermatologists, 7 rheumatologists, one research scientist on lupus and 2 methodologists, from 16 countries/regions in Asia, America and Europe, participated in the development of this guideline. All recommendations were agreed on by at least 80% of the 32 voting physicians. As a consensus, diagnosis of CLE is mainly based on the evaluation of clinical and histopathological manifestations, with an exclusion of SLE by assessment of systemic involvement. For localized CLE lesions, topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatment. For widespread or severe CLE lesions and (or) cases resistant to topical treatment, systemic treatment including antimalarials and (or) short-term corticosteroids can be added. Notably, antimalarials are the first-line systemic treatment for all types of CLE, and can also be used in pregnant patients and pediatric patients. Second-line choices include thalidomide, retinoids, dapsone and MTX, whereas MMF is third-line treatment. Finally, pulsed-dye laser or surgery can be added as fourth-line treatment for localized, refractory lesions of CCLE in cosmetically unacceptable areas, whereas belimumab may be used as fourth-line treatment for widespread CLE lesions in patients with active SLE, or recurrence of ACLE during tapering of corticosteroids. As for management of the disease, patient education and a long-term follow-up are necessary. Disease activity, damage of skin and other organs, quality of life, comorbidities and possible adverse events are suggested to be assessed in every follow-up visit, when appropriate.

IntroductionThe Chinese government has encouraged the development of private sector in delivering healthcare, including primary healthcare (PHC) in the new round of national health reform since 2009. However, the debate about the role of the private sector in achieving universal health coverage continues with poor support from theories and empirical evidence. This study intends to compare the quality of PHC services between the private and public providers in seven provinces in China, using unannounced standardised patients (USPs).MethodsWe are developing and validating 13 USP cases most commonly observed in the PHC setting. Six domains of quality will be assessed by the USP: effectiveness, safety, patient centredness, efficiency, timeliness and equity. The USP will make 2200 visits to 705 public and 521 private PHC institutions across seven provinces, following a multistage clustered sample design. Using each USP-provider encounter as the analytical unit, we will first descriptively compare the raw differences in quality between the private and public providers and then analyse the association of ownership types and quality, using propensity score weighting.Ethics and disseminationThe study was primarily funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (#71974211, #71874116 and # 72074163) and was also supported by the China Medical Board (#16-260, #18-300 and #18-301), and have received ethical approval from Sun Yat-sen University (#2019-024). The validated USP tool and the data collected in this study will be freely available for the public after the primary analysis of the study.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry: #ChiCTR2000032773.

Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results: Overall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I-2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.803.29, I-2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I-2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I-2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I-2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I-2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low. Conclusion: The combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.

ObjectiveTo assess the registration quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical trials for COVID-19, H1N1, and SARS.MethodWe searched for clinical trial registrations of TCM in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) on April 30, 2020. The registration quality assessment is based on the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (Version 1.3.1) and extra items for TCM information, including TCM background, theoretical origin, specific diagnosis criteria, description of intervention, and outcomes.ResultsA total of 136 records were examined, including 129 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) and 7 H1N1 influenza (H1N1) patients. The deficiencies in the registration of TCM clinical trials (CTs) mainly focus on a low percentage reporting detailed information about interventions (46.6%), primary outcome(s) (37.7%), and key secondary outcome(s) (18.4%) and a lack of summary result (0%). For the TCM items, none of the clinical trial registrations reported the TCM background and rationale; only 6.6% provided the TCM diagnosis criteria or a description of the TCM intervention; and 27.9% provided TCM outcome(s).ConclusionOverall, although the number of registrations of TCM CTs increased, the registration quality was low. The registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by more detailed reporting of interventions and outcomes, TCM-specific information, and sharing of the result data.

Background: In response to the ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), China has carried out restrictive disease containment measures across the country. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we collected demographic and epidemiological data of 376 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 among children younger than 18 years of age. Using descriptive statistics and odds ratios, we described the odds of exposure outside the family after the implementation of control measures compared to before. Results: Children diagnosed on or after February 4, 2020, had a lower odds of exposure to COVID-19 outside of the family compared to those diagnosed before February 3, 2020 (OR =0.594, 95% CI: 0.391 to 0.904). In the stratified analysis, children aged 0 to 5 years had the lowest odds of exposure outside of the family (OR =0.420, 95% CI: 0.196 to 0.904) compared to the other age groups assessed. Conclusions: Our study on the children infected with COVID-19 as well as their exposure within family provided evidence that the implementation of containment measures was effective in reducing the odds of exposure outside of the family, especially for preschool children. Continuation of these efforts, coupled with tailored prevention and health education messaging for younger aged children, may help to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 among children until other therapeutic interventions or vaccines are available.