Objective: To explore the effects of personality and sleep quality with psychological distress of junior and senior high school stduents, so as to provide a reference basis for precise interventions of junior and senior high school students mental health. Methods: In October 2023, a convenience sampling method was used to select 9 034 students aged 12-17 from Shiyan City as the study subjects. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) were used to collect information on sleep quality and psychological distress of junior and senior high school stduents. Between group comparison was conducted by using t-test and Chi-square test. Generalized linear models were employed to analyze the interaction and joint effects of personality and sleep quality on psychological distress. Results: The generalized linear model analysis showed that the interaction between personality and sleep quality on psychological distress was statistically significant of junior and senior high school students(effect size=0.80, P <0.01). The general linear model analysis indicated that, after adjusting for variables such as age, gender, screen time, and daily sitting time with the extroverted and good sleep quality group as the reference, the introverted and poor sleep quality group had the largest mean difference in psychological distress scores (difference=0.51, P <0.05). When stratified by sleep quality, psychological distress scores were higher in the introverted and neutral personality groups with both poor and good sleep quality compared to the extroverted group (poor sleep quality: introverted difference=3.71, neutral difference=1.14; good sleep quality: introverted difference=2.23, neutral difference=0.57, all P < 0.05). When stratified by personality, psychological distress scores were higher in the poor sleep quality groups for introverted, neutral, and extroverted individuals compared to their good sleep quality counterparts (differences=8.66, 7.83, 7.34, all P < 0.05 ). Conclusions Personality and sleep quality have interactive and joint effects on psychological distress of junior and senior high school stduents. Personalized psychological interventions should be developed based on personality and sleep quality.

AIM: To investigate the relationship between Apelin and δ-like ligand 4(DLL4)expression levels and clinical stage and efficacy in patients with neovascular glaucoma(NVG).METHODS: A total of 96 NVG patients(96 eyes)who were admitted to our hospital from January 2022 to March 2024(NVG group)and 96 cataract patients(96 eyes)who underwent cataract surgery in our hospital during the same period(control group)were selected. NVG patients were divided into stage Ⅰ group(22 eyes), stage Ⅱ group(47 eyes)and stage Ⅲ group(27 eyes)according to the clinical stage; furthermore, patients were divided into ineffective group(20 eyes)and effective group(76 eyes)according to efficacy. Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The influencing factors of the efficacy in NVG patients were analyzed by multivariate unconditional Logistic regression analysis, the evaluation efficiency of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels on the efficacy in NVG patients was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve.RESULTS: Compared with the control group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the NVG group were increased(all P<0.001). Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ and stage Ⅲ groups increased in turn(all P<0.001). The effective rate of 96 NVG patients was 79.2%(76/96). Compared with the effective group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the ineffective group increased(all P<0.001). Clinical stage III, high intraocular pressure, high Apelin and DLL4 were independent risk factors for ineffective treatment in NVG patients(all P<0.05). The area under the curve of the combined evaluation of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients was 0.874, which was greater than 0.790 and 0.786 of aqueous Apelin and DLL4 levels alone(all P<0.05).CONCLUSION: Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in NVG patients increase, which relate to the increase of clinical stage and poor efficacy, and the combination of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels is more effective in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the methods of ankle hinge position design in the correction of clubfoot deformity by Ilizarov method, and to explore its application value in the prevention of ankle dislocation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 28 patients with rigid clubfoot deformity (34 feet) who met the selection criteria and admitted between September 2021 and December 2024. There were 19 males and 9 females with an average age of 31.8 years (range, 19-47 years). According to Dimeglio classification, there were 21 feet of degree Ⅲ and 13 feet of degree Ⅳ. The causes were traumatic sequelae in 9 cases, congenital foot deformity in 15 cases, spina bifida sequelae in 1 case, peripheral neuropathy in 1 case, and cerebral palsy sequelae in 2 cases. The malformation lasted from 6 to 46 years, with an average of 29.3 years. All patients were treated with Ilizarov circular external fixator, and the hinge position of ankle joint was planned according to the standard lateral X-ray film of foot and ankle and the principle of Ilizarov limb deformity correction center of rotation angulation (CORA) before operation. The 2008 International Clubfoot Study Group (ICFSG) scoring system was used to evaluate the efficacy. RESULTS: The deformity of rigid clubfoot was completely corrected in all patients, and the patients could walk with plantar weight-bearing, and the ankle weight-bearing walking significantly improved when compared with that before operation. There was no complication such as ankle dislocation, talus impact or extrusion, local skin necrosis, needle tract infection, or numbness of extremities during the correction process. All patients were followed up 5-39 months, with an average of 18.1 months. At last follow-up, according to the ICFSG scoring system, 23 feet were excellent, 10 feet were good, and 1 foot was fair, and the excellent and good rate was 97%. CONCLUSION Designing the position of the ankle hinge according to the principle of CORA can effectively avoid ankle dislocation, talus impingement, tibiotalar joint extrusion, and other ankle adverse events in the process of correcting clubfoot deformity, which has good application value in clinical practice.
Humans ; Male ; Female ; Clubfoot/diagnostic imaging* ; Ilizarov Technique/instrumentation* ; Adult ; Retrospective Studies ; External Fixators ; Ankle Joint/diagnostic imaging* ; Middle Aged ; Joint Dislocations/prevention & control* ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

Objective: To explore the clinical manifestations and treatment plans of chronic recurrent parotitis (CRP), and to provide a reference for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of CRP. Methods: Approval was obtained from the hospital’s Medical Ethics Committee, and a retrospective analysis and summary of the clinical features, imaging characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment of 41 CRP patients with complete data were performed. Results: Among the 41 patients with CRP, 14 were male and 27 were female, with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 1:2 (14/27). The age at first-time onset ranged from 3 to 23 years, with a median age of 6 years, and there were 38 patients (92.7%, 38/41) with the first onset age of under 18 years old. The age of the first visit to our hospital ranged from 4 to 72 years old, with an average age of (41.0 ± 17.3) years; the disease duration was 0.5 to 66 years, with an average of 35.0 ± 16.1 years. Twenty-five cases had bilateral parotid gland involvement (61.0%, 25/41). The clinical manifestations of CRP are repeated swelling of one or both parotid glands, along with discomfort, and this may be accompanied by mild edema or skin flushing and pus or jelly-like secretions at the duct openings. The typical manifestations of parotid angiography are: the dominant duct and branch ducts of the parotid gland do not have specific dilation or narrowing, and the peripheral ducts show characteristic “punctate, spherical, or cavitary” dilation and delayed emptying. Of the cases, 34 had abnormal enlargement of the main duct orifice (82.9%, 34/41), and 37 presented with abnormal anterior displacement of the accessory glands (90.2%, 37/41). The treatment plan of “antibiotic perfusion + aspiration and removal of obstruction (or aspiration after obstruction dissolution)+ postprandia massage along the direction of the parotid duct (from posterior to anterior) with multiple courses for consolidation”achieved favorable outcomes. The mean follow-up period of this group was(71.1+21.9)months, and no recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. Conclusion CRP is more prevalent in young females and frequently presents with bilateral involvement. Congenital anatomical defects, such as abnormal enlargement of the main duct orifice and abnormal anterior displacement of the accessory glands, are important predisposing factors. The multi-course comprehensive therapy centered on antibiotic infusion, removal and dissolution of obstructions, and post-prandial massage along the direction of the parotid duct has significant therapeutic effects and deserves clinical application.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.

The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.

The formulation method of emergency health systems guidance （HSG） is crucial， directly impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of responses in emergencies. A scientifically sound， systematic， and easily executable guidance document can assist health institutions at all levels in quickly coordinating resources， standardizing emergency response processes， and safeguarding public health. This study employed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to analyze the characteristics of participants in developing emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included in this study， the item participants received the lowest score. Within this item， criterion 1 （diversity of development group） scored the highest （3.13±1.55）， while criterion 5 （prevention of funding agency influence） scored the lowest （1.21±0.47）. There were differences （P<0.05） in measures taken to mitigate funding agency influence between the six standard HSGs developed by the World Health Organization （WHO） and the four emergency HSGs. Additionally， differences （P<0.05） existed in the development group members， background， conflicts of interest， and preventive measures between the six WHO standard HSGs and the 34 emergency HSGs， as well as between the HSGs developed by the WHO and those developed by countries. The participants in developing emergency HSGs were influenced by various factors， including limited time for guideline development， modes of participation， scarce evidence， and uncertainties in expected outcomes. There is a need to downplay extensive requirements concerning the composition of group members， institutional diversity， and conflicts of interest， emphasizing the roles of key participants like government officials and professionals who can provide rapid， practical guidance in emergency situations.

Recommendations， consensus-based syntheses of the best available evidence， constitute the core content of a guideline. This paper analyzes the characteristics of emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs）， represented by the coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSG， regarding the item "recommendations" and its eight evaluation criteria in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS）. The World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs were used as reference to explore the characteristics of emergency HSGs that are different from non-emergency HSGs. The results showed that the “recommendations” scored second after “topic” among the five items. Criterion 7 relating to operability scored higher than others among the eight criteria， and criterion 3 dealing with ethical principles scored lower than other criteria. Compared with the standard HSGs， the emergency HSGs showed decreased scores （P<0.05） of the item recommendations and the criteria of this item except criterion 4 concerning equity promotion. Among the HSGs with different developers， those developed by the WHO had higher （P<0.05） scores of recommendations than nationally developed HSGs， as evidenced by criterion 4， criterion 5 involving acceptability to and alignment with sociocultural and political interests， and criterion 8 for updating plans. The HSGs regarding global or country strategy scored higher （P<0.05） on criterion 2 relating to comprehensiveness than those involving specific guidance on clinical or material issues. Overall， the emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， differ from the standard HSGs in a number of ways in terms of their recommendations. Emergency HSGs have more condensed content and weaker articulation of expected outcomes. They incline to put more emphasis on updating plans， rather than comprehensiveness or integrative requirements in terms of ethics， equity， and sociocultural and political interests.

The clear definition of the topic in emergency health systems guidance （HSG） ensures the relevance， scientific rigor， and practicality of the guidance， providing a clear direction and a framework for a rapid and effective public health response. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively evaluate the global COVID-19 emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs， aiming to explore the characteristics of topic in emergency HSGs. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included， the item topic received the highest score. Specifically， criterion 4 relating to relevant and applicable factors scored the highest （5.59）， while criterion 3 concerning the prioritization of health system challenges scored the lowest （2.76）. There were differences （P<0.05） in criterion 1 between standard HSGs and overall emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 3 also showed differences （P<0.05） between standard HSGs and emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 4 displayed differences （P<0.000 1） between WHO and national emergency HSGs. No differences were observed in intra-group or inter-group comparisons of different emergency HSG subcategories （P<0.05）. Overall， emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG focus on detailing the challenges faced by the health system， including the natures of challenges， affected populations， and other relevant and applicable factors， while aligning with stakeholder concerns. The prioritization is downplayed， with emphasis placed on rapid responses to and flexible handling of urgent issues. Influenced by factors such as the evidence base， phase timing， and effectiveness， the topic setting shows variations.