Objective To evaluate the effect of problem-based learning (PBL)versus tradi-tional methods in medical statistics. Methods Computer retrieval was conducted to search for con-trolled studies comparing PBL and traditional methods. The quality of included studies was critically evaluated and data were analyzed by using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 21 articles were retrieved,but only 7 were included. The results of Meta analysis showed that there was no significant difference between PBL and traditional methods in both the passing rate of student's score (RR=1.09,95%CI=0.98-1.23,P=0.12>0.05)and the exact score (WMD=0.30, 95%CI=-0.06 -0.67,P=0.10>0.05). Conclusion PBL showed no better learning results in medical statistics compared with traditional methods.

ObjectiveTo assess the current situation of postgraduates knowledge about medical research design and optimize the curriculum setting of research design.MethodsAn investigation was carried out in the postgraduates of 2011 using questionnaires in a medical university..The questionnaire ineluded basic information of participants and cognition of basic methods of research design.ResultsA total of 473 postgraduates participated in the investigation.Among them,311 systematically learned medical statistics before enrollment,and 275 ( 58.14％ ) once participated in scientific researches.Most of them ( ＞80％ ) knew about the 10 basic methods of research design listed in the questionnaire,but only a few of them were familiar with them,and some even didn't know about the methods.ConclusionWe should pay attention to the culture of scientific research thought in statistical design,strengthen the practice of research design teaching,and the curriculum of research design should be led into undergraduate course.

Objective To evaluate cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with the marketed 11 sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like polypeptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonism by Bayesian network meta-analysis system. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database to 18 July 2020. The endpoint of the study was adverse cardiovascular events. The effect measures were hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CI). Results Compared with placebo, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with HR and 95% CI ranging between 0.75(0.60-0.95)~0.90(0.82-0.99); The risk of heart failure was reduced by empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin, with HR and 95%CI ranging between 0.64(0.49-0.82)~0.74(0.65-0.85); Empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, exenatide, liraglutide and oral semaglutide reduced the incidence of all-cause mortality with HR and 95%CI ranging between 0.52(0.33-0.84)~0.89(0.80-0.99); Empagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide and oral semaglutide can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death events, with HR and 95% CI ranging between 0.54(0.30-0.95)~0.83(0.71-0.96) . Conclusion The order of the cardiovascular benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are canagliflozin (the best), empagliflozin, dulaglutide, liraglutide; for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure. The order of the cardiovascular benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure are empagliflozin, canagliflozin, ertugliflozin, and dapagliflozin.

Objective To investigate the overall incidence and risk of hypertension in the treatment of cancer patients who receive anlotinib and compare the differences between anlotinib and other VEGFR inhibitors. Methods Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ASCO, CNKI, Wangfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched. Eligible studies were phase II and III prospective clinical trials on cancer patients who received anlotinib and had the hypertension data available. Meta-analysis for the incidence and risk of anlotinib was performed by using R software (version 3.6.0). SPSS software (version 26.0) was used to compare the difference between anlotinib and other VEGFR inhibitors. Results A total of 1387 cancer patients from 13 clinical trials were included in the Meta-analysis. The overall incidences of all grade and high grade hypertension in cancer patients who received anlotinib were about 47.1% (95%CI: 37.7%−56.6%) and 10.6% (95%CI: 7.4%−14.2%). The use of anlotinib was associated with significantly increased risk of all grade (RR=5.58, 95%CI: 2.29−13.60, P<0.01) and high grade hypertension (RR=27.78, 95%CI: 3.56−216.86, P<0.01). In addition, the incidence of high grade hypertension associated with anlotinib was similar to axitinib (RR=0.79, 95%CI: 0.61−1.02, P=0.066) and cabozantinib (RR=0.87, 95%CI: 0.67−1.13, P=0.290). The incidences of rest of other VEGFR inhibitors were lower than that of anlotinib. Conclusions There is a high incidence and significant risk of developing hypertension in cancer patients receiving anlotinib. Adequate monitoring and timely treatment of hypertension is recommended.