Embryonic stem(ES) cells are derived from totipotent cells of the early mammalian embryo and are capable of unlimited, undifferentiated proliferation in vitro. The establishment of mouse ES cell lines demonstrated the unmatchable convenience for the study of mouse embryonic development and the particular gene regulation and function. It has been long expected to construct such cell line for human. Here we summarized the development in the construction of human ES cell line, its potential utilization in various fields and the possible ethical dilemmas it brought with were also discussed.

Objective:To explore the effect of therapeutic communication on infusion safety, disease uncertainty, coping styles, anxiety and depression in patients with emergency infusion.Methods:A total of 126 patients treated with infusion patients in emergency department in Jiangsu Provincial People's Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from July 2019 to December 2019 were selected and divided into two groups by random digits table method with 63 cases in each group. Patients in the control group received routine nursing, and patients in the intervention group received therapeutic communication nursing intervention on this basis. The incidence of adverse events of infusion during the intervention of the two groups of patients was observed. The disease uncertainty, coping styles, anxiety and depression were evaluated by Mishel's Uncertainty in Illness Scale (MUIS), Medical Coping Mode Questionnaire (MCMQ), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depressive Scale (SDS) before and after intervention.Results:The final collection of 109 patients with complete questionnaire, the recovery rate was 86.51% (109/126), including 55 cases in the intervention group, 54 cases in the control group. The incidence of adverse events of infusion was 16.36%(9/55) in the intervention group and 29.63%(16/54) in the control group, and there was significant difference( χ2 value was 5.057, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the score of MUIS, MCMQ, SAS, SDS before the intervention between the two groups ( P>0.05). After the intervention, the uncertainty, unpredictability, lack of information and complexity dimension of the intervention group patients' MUIS scores were respectively (17.76 ± 2.49), (12.03 ± 2.51), (11.82 ± 2.12), (11.74 ± 2.24), which were lower than those in the control group (24.72 ± 2.94), (16.31 ± 2.27), (16.13 ± 2.51), (15.39 ± 2.31), the differences were significant( t values were -13.346- -8.375, P<0.05). The confront score of the intervention group patients' MCMQ was (19.13 ± 2.62) higher than that in the control group(13.79 ± 1.96), the avoidance and yield scores were respectively (8.71 ± 1.34), (9.81 ± 1.17), which were lower than those in the control group (14.57 ± 1.93), (15.12 ± 1.86), the differences were significant( t values were 12.031, -18.441, -17.875, P<0.05). The scores of SAS and SDS in the intervention group were (29.43 ± 3.62), (27.67 ± 3.11) respectively, which were lower than those in the control group (37.44 ± 5.31), (40.12 ± 4.92), the differences were significant( t values were -9.216, -15.821, P<0.05). Conclusions:Therapeutic communication can reduce the risk of emergency infusion, reduce the uncertainty of patients to the disease, improve patients' countermeasures to the disease, relieve patients' anxiety and depression, and improve the nursing quality of emergency infusion patients.

Objective To assess the methodology of papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine .Methods Basic data were extracted from 70 papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicinefrom 2001 to 2011 .Methodology used in these papers was assessed according to the AMSTAR Scale.The data were input into the Excelland analyzed using the SPSS7.0 and Meta-Analyst software.Results The methodology used in 34 papers (48.6%) was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tools.Fund support, number of authors and their affiliated institutions did not sig-nificantly affect the total score of methodology used in the 70 papers .Conclusion The methodology used in papers on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of interventions published in Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine is not quite valid as its early design program and retrieval strategies are imperfect , and it does not provide the excluded literature list and the interest conflict.