Objective To acknowledge the quality of life (QOL) in patients after lung transplantation and to explore related factors. Methods A cross- sectional study design and a convenience sampling were performed in this research. Totally 30 patients after lung transplantation were investigated. The questionnaires which used to explore the quality of life were Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaires (SF-36) and Revised Airways Questionnaires 20 (AQ20-R). Related state were surveyed by questionnaires consisted of demographic questionnaires, Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Medical Coping Mode Questionnaires (MCMQ). Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 20.0 software. Correlation analysis and multivariate analysis were performed using Pearson linear correlation analysis and multi-linear regression. Results The scores among the 8 dimensions of SF-36 were(34.48±16.73)-( 71.63±22.83), lower than those of norms(Z=-9.684--2.817, P<0.05 or 0.01). Somatic pain scored the highest (71.63±22.83), while physiological function scored the lowest (34.48±16.73). The mean score of AQ20-R was 7.93±5.21. The major two problems that manifested QOL were: uncomfortable feeling of lung caused by strong scent, smog or perfume, exhausted feeling after having a cold. The mean scores of SAS and SDS were 44.33±9.33,48.05±9.80, higher than those of norms, which were 33.80 ± 5.90, 41.88 ± 10.57 (t=6.1833, 3.4458, P < 0.01). The scores among the 3 dimensions of MCMQ were 8.93 ± 2.08, 16.10 ± 2.28, 3.63 ± 1.33 and the differences were significant in 3 dimensions compared with those norms, which were 19.48±3.81, 14.44±2.97, 8.81±3.17(t=-27.7281, 3.9885,-21.3878, P<0.01). Conclusions In SF-36, role-physical of patients after lung transplantation was the worst dimension, while bodily pain was the best dimension of QOL. The QOL of patients after lung transplantation were almost worse than normal people. The related factors of QOL in patients after lung transplantation maybe:anxiety, depression and medical coping style.

Objective To comprehensively analyze of risk factors for the incidence of pulmonary embolism,and provide the basis for the prevention of clinical decision-making.Methods Using Meta-analysis to find out the domestic risk factors of pulmonary embolism with a comprehensive analysis of the quantitative method,and RevMan 5.2 and Stata 12.0 software were used for statistical analysis.Results A total of 11 research literature was included,with a total sample size of 1 459 cases,including DVT,cancer,operation history within 6 weeks,long-term bedridden ≥ 7 d and COPD which were associated with pulmonary embolism,the pooled odd rate (95％ CI) were 10.41 (4.54,23.87),6.79 (2.37,19.43),2.63 (1.12,6.19),3.48 (1.15,10.58),2.36 (1.45,3.84).It could not be certain that past history of thrombosis and smoking history were related to pulmonary embolism,their pooled OR (95％ CI) were 2.06 (0.80,5.33),1.57 (0.87,2.82).Conclusions Bedridden ≥ 7 d,cancer,DVT,operation history within 6 weeks and COPD are major risk factors for incidence of pulmonary embolism.Pulmonary embolism in high-risk groups should be dealt with early intervention.

Objective To standardize an expert consensus on pulmonary rehabilitation nursing of chronic respiratory diseases. Methods On the basis of literature review, 5 experts were interviewed and 19 experts were consulted to establish the primary and secondary themes. 10 nursing experts in this field were invited to conduct peer review on the draft consensus to modify and improve the consensus content. Results After expert consultations，14 first-level themes and 40 second-level themes were established. The value of Ca (judgment coefficient),Cs (familiarity coefficient) and Cr (authority coefficient) were 0.895,0.839 and 0.867 ,which indicated the expert consultation have high authority and credibility. The Kendall coefficients of first-round expert consultation were 0.121 and 0.151, and they were 0.205 and 0.149 in the second round (P<0.05).In the first-round expert consultation, the coefficients of variation of the first and second themes were 0.197 and 0.200,and in the second round ,they were 0.202 and 0.237. They were all less than 0.25 , indicating that the expert's judgment results were relatively consistent. Conclusion As this consensus was developed based on 19 clinical nursing professionals from across the country, it is scientific and authoritative. This consensus can not only benefit to clinical nursing practice, but also lay the foundation for the development of guideline, and it still needs further theoretical and empirical research verification.