Objective:To study and compare the impact of lymph node metastasis and dissection on the prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) patients at different anatomical locations, as well as the effect on prognosis.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 150 ICC patients who underwent radical surgical resection at the 904th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from September 2017 to September 2020. Among them, 86 were males and 64 were females, with the age of (56.2±12.9) years. Differences in albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, number of lymph nodes dissected, lymph node metastasis, and postoperative survival between peripheral and central ICC patients were compared to analyze the impact of lymph node dissection on the prognosis of ICC patients at different locations.Results:There were statistically significant differences in ALBI grade, preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, the number of lymph nodes dissected, and lymph node metastasis between 98 cases of peripheral ICC and 52 cases of central ICC (all P<0.05). The 3-year overall survival rates for peripheral and central ICC patients were 30.6% and 15.4%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=8.46, P=0.004). Among central ICC patients, the 3-year overall survival rates for those with ≥6 lymph nodes dissected and <6 lymph nodes dissected were 16.7% and 12.5%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=3.96, P=0.046). In the high-risk central ICC patients with preoperative lymph node metastasis, the 3-year overall survival rate of ≥6 lymph nodes dissection ( n=22) and <6 lymph nodes dissection ( n=12) were 13.6% and 8.3%, respectively, with statistical significance ( χ2=5.55, P=0.019). Conclusions:The prognosis of peripheral ICC patients is better than that of central ICC patients. For central ICC patients with a high preoperative lymph node metastasis risk, adequate lymph node dissection can lead to a better prognosis.

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.

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.

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.