ObjectiveTo establish the self-reported core outcome set （COS） for patients with an example of a community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion for primary hypertension （PH）， to provide a reference for the selection of effectiveness evaluation indicators in community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion. MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to collect outcomes used in randomized controlled trials and systematic review of heat-sensitive moxibustion for PH （Jan 2021）， and additional outcomes were added through patient and expert questionnaires （Feb 2021） to create a pool of outcome entries. A multidisciplinary expert Delphi survey was conducted to screen outcomes applicable to patient self-reporting （Apr 2021）， and the importance of outcome indicators was rated on a 5-Point Likert Scale. Finally， patient self-reported COS was determined through a consensus conference （June 2021）. ResultsA pool of patient self-reported indicators in the community study of heat-sensitive moxibustion treatment for PH was generated by standardizing and combining the outcome indicators based on the results of the literature search and the questionnaire survey， which consisted of totally 100 measurement tools or contents， excluding 51 indicators or measurement tools required measurement by specialized physicians or hospital equipment， and 49 items were retained to enter the initial list of indicator entries. For the first round of Delphi survey， the mean score for expert familiarity was 0.819， the mean score for basis of judgment was 0.710， and the expert authority coefficient was 0.765， with a total of 21 indicator measurement tools or contents deleted （significance score ≤ 75 or coefficient of variation ＞ 0.25）， 28 retained， and 3 new expert-added indicator entries added. In the second round of Delphi survey， the average score for expert familiarity was 0.859， the average score for basis for judgment was 0.763， and the expert authority coefficient was 0.811， with a total of 11 indicator measurement tools or contents deleted and 20 retained involving 5 domains. Following an expert consensus meeting， 8 outcome indicators were finalized for inclusion in the patient self-reported COS， including 6 indicators of effectiveness evaluation such as quality-of-life scores， blood pressure， traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores， cost-benefit， cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events， and adverse reactions/events， and 2 indicators of factors influencing effectiveness such as sensation of heat-sensitive moxibustion， and adherence. ConclusionIn this study， we initially established a criteria for evaluating the effectiveness in the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion by constructing patient self-reported COS in the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion for PH， which can provide a scientific research paradigm for the subsequent development of the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

ObjectiveTo explore the current situation of forensic ethics practice and education by designing a questionnaire on forensic ethics， with a view to exploring the path of forensic ethics education construction. MethodsA total of 667 valid questionnaires were collected using the online survey method， basically covering various regions across the country and all sub-specialties of forensic medicine. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the relevant data. ResultsMost practitioners had relevant ethical reflections in the process of forensic practice. 69.12% of the respondents indicated that they had studied the relevant rules， but approximately half stated that there were no corresponding ethical norms or standard operating manuals. The specific behaviors violating ethics in different units were diverse. 23.04% of the respondents reported that they had encountered unethical behaviors， but only 4.9% of them reported such violations. In terms of forensic ethics education， 87.75% of the respondents believed that there were issues with the current model of forensic ethics education. Meanwhile， the respondents showed a high degree of recognition for receiving forensic ethics education， with 84.15% of respondents expressing willingness to participate in relevant courses. More than half of respondents were willing to participate in forensic ethics education during undergraduate studies， new employee training， and regular post-employment training. ConclusionCurrently， there is a problem of ethical neglect in forensic work in China. Combining ethics courses with professional courses at the practitioner training stage and providing regular training at the practice stage are effective measures to popularize forensic ethics knowledge， enhance ethical awareness， and improve the quality of practice.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.