Objective To evaluate the saline and ethanol for effects of disinfecting penicillin skin test.Methods Searching CNKI,VIP,CBM and Wanfang Data to collect case-control studies suiting enrolled conditions.Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.0.0 software.Results Five case-control studies with 9 481 patients were enrolled.Meta-analysis demonstrated there was significant difference between saline and ethanol in penicillin skin test disinfection.Conclusions Saline has lower positive results than ethanol,and can better represent the result of penicillin skin test.

Objective To construct the competency model of excellent and common clinical medicine undergraduates according to the competency theory . Methods Literature search was used to screen competency model. Behavioral event interview was used to interview 32 excellent clinical experts. Open questionnaire survey was conducted to 100 clinical medical undergraduates. We compiled the primary competency dictionary based on the above results. To determine the final competency dictionary, Delphi method of 50 experts was used to determine the final competency dictionary. According to the competency dictionary, a questionnaire survey was made to test the excellent and ordinary undergraduate students. Results The 38 features of behavioral event interview and 42 features of open questionnaire survey were combined to 51 features, which were used as the first round of expert questionnaire. Two rounds of expert consultation reached a high degree of coordination. 4 first level indicators: knowledge and skills, social role+values+service characteristics, self-concept and consciousness, personality quality and motivation and 36 features were established as final compentency model. 80 excellent clinical medical undergraduates got score of 143.65 ±23.53, while 100 ordinary undergraduates got score of 133.55 ±35.31 (t=2.29,P=0.023), which indicated the competency model could distinguish excellent and ordinary clinical under-graduates . Conclusion This competency model of clinical undergraduate students is reliable and practical, which can be used in future clinical undergraduate training and evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively investigate the association between the polymorphism of FokI of the VDR gene and the susceptibility of prostatic cancer. METHODS: Databases of Pubmed, EMBase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang Data were retrieved from the date they formed till May 2011. All randomized controlled clinical trials which matched both the inclusive criteria and exclusive criteria were subjected to meta-analysis, conducted on Revman 5.0.0 software. Stata 11.0 software was employed to process Begg's test. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. Total sample cases were 8360, with 3749 cases in the patient group and 4611 cases in the control group, respectively. The quantitative analysis showed there were no significantly differences between the polymorphism of VDR FokI alleles and the susceptibility of prostatic cancer (allele F to f: OR=1.00, 95% CI=0.94-1.06, P=0.96; genotypes FF/Ff to ff: OR=1.04, 95% CI=0.93-1.51, P=0.48; genotypes FF to Ff/ff: OR=0.97, 95% CI=0.89-1.06, P=0.53). Though one research on Indian people indicated that allele F was a risk factor for prostatic cancer, in Begg's test we observed relatively high publication bias. The subgroup analysis showed there were no significantly differences between the polymorphism of VDR FokI alleles and the susceptibility of prostatic cancer (allele F to f, white race: OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.88-1.02, P=0.17; yellow race: OR=1.09, 95% CI=0.95-1.24, P=0.22; Indian: OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.30-2.81, P=0.0009). CONCLUSION VDR FokI allele F might be a protective factor for European and American Caucasians.
Alleles ; Deoxyribonucleases, Type II Site-Specific ; genetics ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Humans ; Male ; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; genetics ; Receptors, Calcitriol ; genetics

Objective:To explore the value of linaclotide combined with compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Methods:A randomized and single blind prospective clinical study was conducted in patients who intended to receive colonoscopy at the Department of Gastroenterology in Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University from June 2021 to August 2021. One hundred and fifty-two patients in the experimental group were treated with 580 μg linaclotide + 2 L PEG, and 152 patients in the control group were treated with 3 L PEG. The bowel preparation effects including Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score, bubble score and lesion detection rate, and safety (adverse events) were compared between the two groups.Results:The total BBPS scores were 9 (8, 9) in the experimental group, and 9 (9, 9) in the control group with no significant difference ( Z=0.141, P=0.888). The bubble scores were 1 (1, 2) in the experimental group, and 1 (1, 1) in the control group with no significant difference ( Z=1.788, P=0.074). There was no significant difference in detection rate of lesions between the experimental group and the control group [37.50% (57/152) VS 33.55% (51/152), χ2=0.517, P=0.472]. There was no significant difference in safety including incidence of nausea [7.24% (11/152) VS 13.16% (20/152), χ2=2.910, P=0.088], vomiting [2.63% (4/152) VS 7.24% (11/152), χ2=3.436, P=0.064], abdominal distension [7.89% (12/152) VS 11.84% (18/152), χ2=1.331, P=0.249] and abdominal pain [2.63% (4/152) VS 4.61% (7/152), χ2=0.849, P=0.357] between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusion:Linaclotide combined with PEG for colonoscopic bowel preparation reduces drinking water volume. The cleaning effect and safety are comparable to using 3 L PEG. It can be recommended for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Objective: To investigate the cleaning effects of biofilm cleaning agent and two kinds of multi-enzyme detergents on endoscopic biofilm. Methods: Endoscopic biofilm model was established using pseudomonas aeruginosa, and soaked with No. 1 multi-enzyme detergent, No. 2 multi-enzyme detergent, and biofilm cleaning agent respectively. The control group was cleaned with sterile water. After 5, 10, and 15 minutes at room temperature, the cleaning effects were evaluated by bacteria counting method and scanning electron microscope. Arova was used for the comparison of viable counts among groups. Results: At 5, 10, and 15 minutes of soak, the standard colony counts (CFU/cm²) of biofilm was 5.31±0.10, 5.04±0.08 and 4.90±0.16 in the No.1 multi-enzyme detergent group, 5.53±0.30, 5.39±0.21 and 5.03±0.42 in the No.2 multi-enzyme detergent group, and 3.53±0.30, 3.01±0.07 and 2.82±0.26 in the biofilm cleaning agent group, and 7.92±0.21 in the blank control group. There was no significant difference in the colony counts between the two multi-enzyme detergent groups (P>0.05). However, the colony counts of biofilm cleaning agent group was less than that of the two multi-enzyme detergent groups (P<0.05), and decreased with time (P<0.05). Under scanning electron microscope, the biofilm cleaning agent group had the least residual biofilm and bacteria. Conclusion Biofilm cleaning agent can significantly improve the quality of endoscopic cleaning, and is worthy of clinical promotion.