ObjectiveTo investigate the accuracy of multiple discriminant analysis （MDA） versus fibrosis-4 （FIB-4） in assessing liver fibrosis degree in patients with HBV infection， as well as the possibility of MDA as an indicator for disease progression. MethodsA total of 263 patients with HBV infection who underwent liver biopsy in The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from April 2010 to April 2024 were included， and their clinical data were collected. According to the results of pathological examination， they were divided into non-significant fibrosis group （F<2） with 126 patients and significant fibrosis group （F≥2） with 137 patients. The correlation of MDA and FIB-4 with liver fibrosis degree was analyzed， and MDA and FIB-4 were compared in terms of their accuracy in assessing significant liver fibrosis. A total of 62 patients completed follow-up， and according to the presence or absence of progression to liver cirrhosis at the last follow-up visit， they were divided into progressive group with 21 patients and non-progressive group with 41 patients； the efficacy of MDA and FIB-4 in diagnosing disease progression was analyzed and compared. The independent-samples t test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between groups， and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data between groups； the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for comparison between multiple groups， and the Bonferroni method was used for further comparison between two groups. The chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used for correlation analysis. The Wilcoxon signed rank sum test was used for the analysis of baseline data and data at the end of follow-up， and the binary Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for progression to liver cirrhosis. The receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of indicators， the Z-test was used for comparison of the area under the ROC curve （AUC）， and the paired chi-square test was used for comparison of the sensitivity， specificity， and accuracy of the two indicators. ResultsThe correlation coefficient between FIB-4 and liver fibrosis degree was 0.378， while the correlation coefficient between MDA and liver fibrosis degree was -0.325 （both P<0.001）. FIB-4 had an AUC of 0.688， a sensitivity of 64.96%， a specificity of 68.87%， a positive predictive value of 67.42%， a negative predictive value of 63.36%， an accuracy of 65.40%， and a cut-off value of 1.01， while MDA had an AUC of 0.653， a sensitivity of 52.55%， a specificity of 78.57%， a positive predictive value of 72.73%， a negative predictive value of 60.37%， an accuracy of 65.02%， and a cut-off value of 0.29， suggesting that compared with FIB-4， MDA had a lower sensitivity （P=0.004） and a higher specificity （P=0.001）. The progressive group had a significantly higher age than the non-progressive group at baseline （t=2.611， P=0.011）. For the progressive group， there was an increase in FIB-4 and a reduction in MDA from baseline to the end of follow-up （both P<0.001）， while the non-progressive group showed no significant changes （both P>0.05）. The multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that aspartate aminotransferase （odds ratio ［OR］=0.940， 95% confidence interval ［CI］： 0.885‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.998， P<0.05） and MDA （OR=0.445， 95%CI： 0.279‍ ‍—‍ ‍0.710， P<0.001） were independent influencing factors for disease progression. MDA had an AUC of 0.893 and an optimal cut-off value of -0.01 in diagnosing the disease progression of liver cirrhosis. ConclusionMDA has a comparable accuracy to FIB-4 in the diagnosis of significant liver fibrosis， and MDA<-0.01 has a high accuracy in diagnosing the progression of liver fibrosis to liver cirrhosis， which can help to reduce the need for liver biopsy in clinical practice.

During coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic, the treatment of severe trauma has been impacted. The Consensus on emergency surgery and infection prevention and control for severe trauma patients with 2019 novel corona virus pneumonia was published online on February 12, 2020, providing a strong guidance for the emergency treatment of severe trauma and the self-protection of medical staffs in the early stage of the epidemic. With the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council renaming "novel coronavirus pneumonia" to "novel coronavirus infection" and the infection being managed with measures against class B infectious diseases since January 8, 2023, the consensus published in 2020 is no longer applicable to the emergency treatment of severe trauma in the new stage of epidemic prevention and control. In this context, led by the Chinese Traumatology Association, Chinese Trauma Surgeon Association, Trauma Medicine Branch of Chinese International Exchange and Promotive Association for Medical and Health Care, and Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Traumatology, the Chinese expert consensus on emergency surgery for severe trauma and infection prevention during coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic ( version 2023) is formulated to ensure the effectiveness and safety in the treatment of severe trauma in the new stage. Based on the policy of the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council and by using evidence-based medical evidence as well as Delphi expert consultation and voting, 16 recommendations are put forward from the four aspects of the related definitions, infection prevention, preoperative assessment and preparation, emergency operation and postoperative management, hoping to provide a reference for severe trauma care in the new stage of the epidemic prevention and control.