Objective: To investigate psychological and behavioral responses and the prevalence of acute stress disorder (ASD) among the injured from a serious road traffic accident. Methods: The injured persons at ages of 7 years and older from a serious road traffic accident were enrolled, and individuals with severe injury were exclude. Participants' gender, age, educational level, marital status, injury severity, family member's injury and death during the accident and psychological and behavioral status were collected. The prevalence of ASD was estimated using a semi-structured interview and the ASD Scale, and the factors affecting the development of ASD were identified using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: A total of 132 survivors participated in psychological crisis assessment, including 82 men (62.12%) and 50 women (37.88%) and with a mean age of (46.50±18.57) years. There were 6 participants without obvious trauma (4.54%), 113 with mild injury (85.61%) and 13 with moderate injury (9.85%), and there were 6 participants with death of their family members during this accident. Insomnia, anxiety, flashback and fear were predominant psychological and behavioral responses, with prevalence rates of 42.42%, 35.58%, 26.52% and 23.48%, respectively. The prevalence of ASD was 30.30% among participants, and a higher rate of ASD was detected among women than among men (52.00% vs. 17.07%; χ2=17.940, P<0.001). The detection of ASD was higher among participants with death of their family members than among those without death of their family members (83.33% vs. 26.98%; χ2=8.370, P=0.004), and a higher detection rate of ASD was seen among participants with moderate injury (61.54%; χ2=6.786, P=0.034). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed a higher risk of ASD among females (OR=7.764, 95%CI: 3.187-18.915) and those with a high educational level (high school/technical secondary school, OR=6.896, 95%CI: 1.030-46.152; diploma and above, OR=71.583, 95%CI: 4.145-1 236.270). Conclusions Insomnia and anxiety are predominant psychological and behavioral responses following serious road traffic accidents, and women and individuals with a high educational level present a high risk of ASD, which requires to be given timely psychological crisis interventions.

ObjectiveTo conduct a bibliometric analysis on the research status of occupational pneumoconiosis (hereinafter referred to as "pneumoconiosis") severity assessment indicators. Methods The domestic and foreign articles on the research of pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were accessed from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, China Biomedical Literature Service System, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The methodological quality evaluation and analysis of severity assessment indicators were performed with the relevant articles. Results A total of 88 relevant articles on pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were included. The overall evaluation of the literature with good-, moderate-, and poor-quality articles accounted for 18.18%, 69.32%, and 12.50%, respectively. The median sample size reported in each article was 86 cases. The articles reporting the stage of pneumoconiosis accounted for 81.82%, and 80.68% reported the types of pneumoconiosis which was mainly simple silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis. Only 12 articles reported two or more types of pneumoconiosis. A total of 122 severity assessment indicators in four categories were reported in 88 articles, including 99 physiological and biochemical indicators, 10 imaging indicators, six symptoms and signs indicators, and seven other indicators. The articles used a single severity assessment indicator to assess the severity of pneumoconiosis accounted for 76.14%, while 23.86% of the articles used multiple severity assessment indicators, and only 5.68% of the articles selected specific severity assessment indicators for pneumoconiosis patients in different stages. Conclusion The quality of research on pneumoconiosis severity assessment is relatively low. The applicability of the combined use of severity assessment indicators is poor and confused.