Objective:To systematically evaluate the quality of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations, and provide a reference for the update of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations in China.Methods:"guidelines/consensus/specifications/standards" , "stomach/gastric tumors" , "screening/diagnosis" , "guideline/recommendation" , "gastric cancer/gastric tumor," "early detection of cancer/screening" were searched as keywords in PubMed, Embase, Web of knowledge, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library, as well as the US Preventive Services Working Group, the American Cancer Society, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Australia Cancer Council and the International Guide Collaboration Network at the end of July 2018. The inclusion criteria were independent guidelines/recommendation documents for gastric cancer screening. The exclusion criteria were guideline abstracts, interpretation and evaluation literature, duplicate publications, updated original guidelines, and clinical treatment or practice guidelines for gastric cancer. The language was limited to Chinese and English. The European Guide to Research and Evaluation Tools (AGREE Ⅱ) and Practice Guideline Reporting Standard (RIGHT) for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines/Recommendations were used to compare and evaluate the quality and reporting standard of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations.Results:A total of five guides/recommendations were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of five guides/recommendations was different, including one recommended for "A", one for "B", and three for "C". Each guide/recommendation scored higher in the scope and purpose, clarity, and scores were more significant in the areas of rigor and independence. In the participants, the application field scores were generally low. The RIGHT evaluation results showed that the quality of five guides/recommendations should be improved. The six items with poor report quality were background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and conflict of interest statement and management, and other aspects.Conclusion:The quality of the included gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations is generally low, and the standardization should be strengthened.

Objective:To systematically evaluate the quality of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations, and provide a reference for the update of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations in China.Methods:"guidelines/consensus/specifications/standards" , "stomach/gastric tumors" , "screening/diagnosis" , "guideline/recommendation" , "gastric cancer/gastric tumor," "early detection of cancer/screening" were searched as keywords in PubMed, Embase, Web of knowledge, China Knowledge Network, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library, as well as the US Preventive Services Working Group, the American Cancer Society, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Australia Cancer Council and the International Guide Collaboration Network at the end of July 2018. The inclusion criteria were independent guidelines/recommendation documents for gastric cancer screening. The exclusion criteria were guideline abstracts, interpretation and evaluation literature, duplicate publications, updated original guidelines, and clinical treatment or practice guidelines for gastric cancer. The language was limited to Chinese and English. The European Guide to Research and Evaluation Tools (AGREE Ⅱ) and Practice Guideline Reporting Standard (RIGHT) for Gastric Cancer Screening Guidelines/Recommendations were used to compare and evaluate the quality and reporting standard of gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations.Results:A total of five guides/recommendations were included. The results of the AGREE Ⅱ quality evaluation showed that the overall quality of five guides/recommendations was different, including one recommended for "A", one for "B", and three for "C". Each guide/recommendation scored higher in the scope and purpose, clarity, and scores were more significant in the areas of rigor and independence. In the participants, the application field scores were generally low. The RIGHT evaluation results showed that the quality of five guides/recommendations should be improved. The six items with poor report quality were background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and conflict of interest statement and management, and other aspects.Conclusion:The quality of the included gastric cancer screening guidelines/recommendations is generally low, and the standardization should be strengthened.

Vaccination is an effective public health measure to prevent and control vaccine-preventable diseases for individual and society. However, China currently confronts significant challenges, including a dearth of skilled professionals in the field of vaccination and disparities in the capacity for immunization services. This review introduced the experiences of four prime international vaccinology education models, including London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Leading International Vaccinology Education, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in the aspect of personnel development, academic research and communication platforms establishment. It is supposed to give some insights and feasible suggestions on the establishment and advancement of vaccinology as a sub-discipline within high-level public health school in China, with the aim of development of a robust vaccinology education framework in China, which is essential for nurturing the next generation of public health leaders and practitioners for our country.

Vaccination is an effective public health measure to prevent and control vaccine-preventable diseases for individual and society. However, China currently confronts significant challenges, including a dearth of skilled professionals in the field of vaccination and disparities in the capacity for immunization services. This review introduced the experiences of four prime international vaccinology education models, including London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Leading International Vaccinology Education, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in the aspect of personnel development, academic research and communication platforms establishment. It is supposed to give some insights and feasible suggestions on the establishment and advancement of vaccinology as a sub-discipline within high-level public health school in China, with the aim of development of a robust vaccinology education framework in China, which is essential for nurturing the next generation of public health leaders and practitioners for our country.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization recommends that influenza vaccines should benefit as much of the population as possible, especially where resources are limited. Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become one of the greatest threats to health systems worldwide. The present study aimed to extend the evidence of the association between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 to promote the former. METHODS: In this systematic review, four electronic databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched for related studies published up to May 2022. All odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies, encompassing 55,996,841 subjects, were included in this study. The meta-analysis for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection provided an OR of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.87). The statistically significant estimates for clinical outcomes were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.72-0.96) for intensive care unit admission, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57-0.84) for ventilator support, and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.52-0.93) for fatal infection, while no effect seen in hospitalization with an OR of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.68-1.10). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination helps limit SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but further studies are needed. REGISTRATION PROSPERO, CRD42022333747.
Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Influenza, Human ; Intensive Care Units ; Vaccination