Objective To evaluate and compare the diagnostic efficiency of X-ray mammography and breast ultrasound for suspected breast lesions. Methods A total of 80 female patients with suspected breast lesions diagnosed by X-ray mammography or breast ultrasound were selected as the study subjects. The histopathological testresults served as the gold standard, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of X-ray mammography and breast ultrasound for the diagnosis of breast lesions were estimated and compared. Results Among the 80 female patients with suspected breast lesions, 57 patients were histopathologically diagnosed with breast cancer and 23 patients with benign breast lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of X-ray mammography for the diagnosis of suspected breast lesions in women were 63.16%, 73.91%, 44.74%, 85.71%, and 66.25%, respectively, and those of breast ultrasound were 78.95%, 21.74%, 29.41%, 71.43%, and 62.50%, respectively. There were no significant differences between X-ray mammography and breast ultrasound for the diagnosis of suspected breast lesions in women in terms of sensitivity (χ² = 3.45, P > 0.05), NPV (χ² = 1.15, P > 0.05), PPV (χ² = 2.92, P > 0.05), and accuracy (χ² = 0.25, P > 0.05). However, specificity showed a significant difference between X-ray mammography and breast ultrasound (χ² = 12.55, P < 0.01). Conclusion A comparable accuracy of X-ray mammography and breast ultrasound is found for the diagnosis of suspected breast lesions in women. However, X-ray mammography presents a significantly higher specificity than breast ultrasound for the diagnosis of suspected breast lesions in women.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of lateral prone position ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: A prospective control study was conducted. A total of 75 patients with moderate to severe ARDS admitted to the department of critical care medicine of Jingxian Hospital in Anhui province from January 2020 to December 2022 were selected as the research objects. According to the envelope method, the patients were divided into the lateral prone position ventilation group (38 cases) and the traditional prone position ventilation (PPV) group (37 cases), using lateral prone position ventilation and traditional PPV, respectively. The mechanical ventilation parameters were set according to the ARDS treatment guidelines and lung protective ventilation requirements in both groups, and the time of prone position for the first 3 times was not less than 16 hours per day. General data of patients were recorded, including heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), airway resistance and lung static compliance (Cst) before prone position (T0), 1 hour (T1), 4 hours (T2), 8 hours (T3), and before the end of prone position (T4), oxygenation index (PaO₂/FiO₂) before the first prone position (t0) and 12 hours (t1), 24 hours (t2), 48 hours (t3), and 72 hours (t4) after the intensive care unit (ICU) admission, as well as the incidence of pressure injury (PI) and vomiting, tracheal intubation time, and mechanical ventilation time. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the effects of different prone positions on patients before and after the prone position. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), underlying diseases, HR, MAP, pH value, PaO₂/FiO₂, blood lactic acid (Lac), arterial blood pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) and other general information between the two groups. The HR (intergroup effect: F = 0.845, P = 0.361; time effect: F = 1.373, P = 0.247; interaction: F = 0.245, P = 0.894), MAP (intergroup effect: F = 1.519, P = 0.222; time effect: F = 0.169, P = 0.954; interaction: F = 0.449, P = 0.773) and airway resistance (intergroup effect: F = 0.252, P = 0.617; time effect: F = 0.578, P = 0.679; interaction: F = 1.467, P = 0.212) of T0-T4 between two groups showed no significant difference. The Cst of T0-T4 between the two groups showed no significant difference in the intergroup effect (F = 0.311, P = 0.579) and the interaction (F = 0.364, P = 0.834), while the difference in the time effect was statistically significant (F = 120.546, P < 0.001). The PaO₂/FiO₂ of t0-t4 between the two groups showed no significant difference in the intergroup effect (F = 0.104, P = 0.748) and the interaction (F = 0.147, P = 0.964), while the difference in the time effect was statistically significant (F = 17.638, P < 0.001). The group factors and time factors were tested separately, and there were no significant differences in the HR, MAP, airway resistance, Cst, PaO₂/FiO₂ between the two groups at different time points (all P > 0.05). The Cst at T1-T4 and PaO₂/FiO₂ at t1-t4 in the two groups were significantly higher than those at T0/t0 (all P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the tracheal intubation time [days: 6.75 (5.78, 8.33) vs. 7.00 (6.30, 8.45)] and mechanical ventilation time [days: 8.30 (6.70, 9.20) vs. 7.40 (6.80, 8.75)] between the lateral prone position ventilation group and the traditional PPV group (both P > 0.05). However, the incidences of PI [7.9% (3/38) vs. 27.0% (10/37)] and vomiting [10.5% (4/38) vs. 29.7% (11/37)] in the lateral prone position ventilation group were significantly lower than those in the traditional PPV group (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Both lateral prone position ventilation and traditional PPV can improve Cst and oxygenation in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The two types of prone position have little influence on HR, MAP and airway resistance of patients, and there is no difference in the influence on tracheal intubation time and mechanical ventilation time of patients. However, the lateral prone position ventilation mode can reduce the incidence of PI and vomiting, and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.
Humans ; Respiration, Artificial ; Prone Position ; Prospective Studies ; Lung ; Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy* ; Respiration ; Vomiting

In order to optimize the clinical service experience and provide efficient, convenient and high-quality logistics services, a multi-campus hospital has taken a series of measures, including establishing a logistics one-stop service center, building a logistics operation and maintenance management platform based on mobile Internet, normalizing quality control circle activities, building logistics command and dispatch center and business data center, and establishing performance evaluation system of logistics service personnel, etc., to provide homogeneous logistics service. The practice of multi-campus logistics management based on one-stop service mode can improve the level of logistics service, improve the clinical experience of logistics service, improve the satisfaction and sense of belonging of logistics staff, and play an important role in improving the rapid response ability of the hospital.

【Objective】 To analyze the cost and effectiveness of different HIV screening strategies based on multi-center HIV residual risk study, so as to provide reference for blood centers to adopt appropriate HIV testing strategies. 【Methods】 According to the HIV screening and confirmation of blood donors in three blood centers in Anhui Province, the residual risk of different HIV screening strategies was estimated. A decision tree model was established to analyze the cost-effectiveness differences of three different screening strategies under current domestic policies. 【Results】 The residual risk of anti-HIV-1 +2 ELISA, HIV Ag/Ab1+2 ELISA and ELISA+NAT were 1.17×10^-6,0.84×10^-6 and 0.59×10^-6, respectively. According to decision tree model analysis, HIV Ag/Ab1+2 ELISA had a cost-effectiveness advantage over anti-HIV 1+2 ELISA when there was no NAT, but the advantage of HIV Ag/Ab1+2 ELISA disappeared when there was one NAT. The cost of HIV reagents, the cost of HIV treatment and the cost of false positive discarding were sensitive factors of the model. 【Conclusion】 In this area, one anti-HIV 1+2 ELISA combined with one NAT has a cost-effectiveness advantage. Blood centers need to confirm and evaluate the ELISA reagents used before conducting HIV screening. Under the premise of ensuring sensitivity, reagent cost and reagent false positive rate are the key factors.

Animal experiments play an important role in the process of biomedical research, and is a necessary way to transform basic medicine into clinical medicine. The standardization of animal experimental studies and reports determines the reliability and reproducibility of research results, and is also the key to transforming the results of animal experiments into clinical trials. In view of how to design and implement animal experiments, write animal experiment reports, and publish relevant academic papers in a more standardized way, LACM (Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine) has launched a new column of comparative medical research and reporting standards from 2023, focusing on the introduction and interpretation of international general norms related to laboratory animal and comparative medicine, such as ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). This article focuses on the development and application, basic content and priority of ARRIVE 2.0, as well as the scheme of implementing ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international biomedical journals, and explains the current situation and future plans of LACM following ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The research and report of animal experimental medicine following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and other international norms is one of the important driving forces to promote the high-quality development of experimental animal science and biomedicine in China, and also a powerful means to implement the 3R principle and improve the welfare of laboratory animals. Through this article, we hope the majority of scientific researchers and editors will attach great importance and actively implement these international standards.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge.Transparent and accurate reporting of the research process enables readers to evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The fourth part of the article includes the items 1-5 of ARRIVE 2.0 Recommended 11 section, which covers "Abstract" "Background" "Objectives" "Ethical statement" and "Housing and husbandry". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Lung cancer, as one of the malignant tumors with the fastest increasing morbidity and mortality in the world, has a serious impact on people's health. With the continuous advancement of medical technology, more and more medical methods are applied to lung cancer screening, which has gradually increased the detection rate of early lung cancer. At present, the standard operation for the treatment of early non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still lobectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection. There is a growing trend to use segmentectomy for the treatment of early stage lung cancer. Anatomical segmentectomy not only removes the lesions to the maximum extent, but also preserves the lung function to the greatest extent, and its advantages are also obvious. This article reviews the progress of anatomical segmentectomy in the treatment of early NSCLC.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results remains a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting of progress can help readers evaluate the reliability of research results and further explore an experiment by repeating or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is the second part of the Chinese translation of the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in PLoS Biology in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org) and based on the best practices for following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals. This part includes Items 4-7 of "ARRIVE Essential 10" in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines: "Randomization", "Blinding", "Outcome Measurement", and "Statistical Methods". Our Chinese translated version aims to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhancing the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promoting the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Researchers reporting their research process transparently and accurately can help readers evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. this article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The first part of the article includes the preface and the "Key 10" section, which covers "study design" "sample size" and "inclusion and exclusion criteria". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting of the research process enables readers to evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist that is applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as enhance the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translation of animal experimental results. The use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and completeness of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is based on the best practices following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, and it interprets, explains, and elaborates in Chinese the fifth part of the comprehensive version of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in PLoS Biology in 2020 (the original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). This section includes the items 6-11 of Recommended 11 section, covering "Animal Care and Monitoring", "Interpretation/Scientific Implications", "Generalisability/Translation", "Protocol Registration", "Data Access" and "Declaration of Interests". Its aim is to promote a comprehensive understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines among domestic researchers, to enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and to promote high-quality development of experimental animal sciences and comparative medicine research in China.