Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pantoprazole ( PAN ) vs. ranitidine (RAN) for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods PubMed,Medline,EMbase,The Cochrane Library and three Chinese literature databases (CNKI,VIP and Wan fang) were retrieveed.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the clinical outcomes of PAN group vs. RAN group for GERD were included. Two reviewers independently screened literatures in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies.Then,meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 8 RCTs involving 1 590 patients were included.The results of meta-analysis showed that the PAN group was significantly superior to RAN group in terms of the healing rates and the relief rates of chief symptom for GERD of gradeⅠ-Ⅲ. While there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups [GradeⅠ,RR=1.17,95%CI (0.80,1.70),P=0.43;GradeⅡorⅢ, RR=0.76,95%CI (0.43,1.36);P=0.36]. Conclusion Current evidence indicates that,pantoprazole is more effective than ranitidine for GERD of grade Ⅰ-Ⅲ,but both treatments are safe and well tolerated.

Objective:To know the work status of clinical pharmacy in medical institutions of Guizhou province. Methods:Ques-tionnaires were used to analyze the situation of clinical pharmacy in 108 medical institutions of Guizhou province. Results: A total of 246 questionnaires were taken back, and among the 231 valid questionnaires were received including gradeⅡor above hospitals. The main contents of clinical pharmacy work carried out in medical institutions included 7 aspects: pharmacists ’ participation in ward rounds, which accounted for 47. 11%; pharmacists’ participation in case consultation, which accounted for 16. 65%; pharmacists’ participation in teaching practice, which accounted for 38. 84%; pharmacists’ participation in prescription evaluation and analysis, which accounted for 72. 73%;pharmacists’ participation in antimicrobial drug monitoring and drug use evaluation, which accounted for 62. 37%;pharmacists’ participation in drug counsultation and education, which accounted for 58. 68%;pharmacists’ participation in adverse drug reaction monitoring and supervision, which accounted for 77. 32%. Conclusion:The development of clinical pharmacy in Guizhou province still lags behind, and the number of clinical pharmacists is insufficient, which can’ t meet the growing demand for personalized medicine. In particular, the development of clinical pharmacy is restricted by the limited pharmaceutical service. The cog-nition degree of pharmacist group in Guizhou province has been improved. However, the number and the service quality of clinical pharmacists need to be improved further.

OBJECTIVE: To provide reference for standardizing clinical pharmacist training.METHODS: According to actual situation in our hospital, a new clinical pharmacist training teaching method [lecture-based learning (LBL) -case-based learning (CBL) combination method] was created by integrating the training resources of clinical teaching and research department and extending teaching content. The comprehensive skills of trainees after training were compared between 2015 (traditional one-to-one teaching model) and 2016 (LBL-CBL combination method). RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: In 2016, trainees are significantly improved in the ability to analyze (3. 8 score vs. 2. 8 score) and deal with clinical problems (2. 9 score vs. 2. 5 score) compared with those in 2015. LBL-CBL combination method can satisfy the demands of clinical pharmacists training in our hospital. Not only basic theory and clinical knowledge of trainees are improved, but also clinical thinking and comprehensive skill of trainees are strengthened by using LBL-CBL combination method. LBL-CBL combination method can be used in clinical pharmacists training and its usual tests, and contributes to the improvement of clinical pharmacist training teaching.