ObjectiveTo construct a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for clinical practice guidelines of traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） that is scientific， systematic， and reflects the characteristics of TCM. MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Chinese and English databases， including CNKI， Wanfang， VIP， SinoMed， PubMed， Embase， and Cochrane Library， to include literature on domestic and international guideline evaluation tools and TCM-related research. Document analysis and CiteSpace were utilized for keyword co-occurrence and clustering analysis. ResultsA total of 65 relevant studies were included， from which seven core thematic domains were identified. Based on the research objectives， a two-step construction strategy was adopted： first， an external evaluation framework was established by referencing international tools to cover methodological rigor and procedural standardization； second， an internal evaluation framework was developed to reflect the distinctive features of TCM clinical practice， including syndrome differentiation and efficacy feedback. Through expert consensus， the indicator system was refined， resulting in a dual-layered structure comprising 8 primary indicators， 22 secondary indicators， and 62 evaluation criteria. ConclusionThe comprehensive evaluation system for TCM clinical practice guidelines， based on bibliometric analysis and core element extraction， integrates both theoretical integrity and practical applicability. This study provides a preliminary research foundation for further optimization， validation， and development of a refined comprehensive evaluation system.

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.

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.

Recommendations， consensus-based syntheses of the best available evidence， constitute the core content of a guideline. This paper analyzes the characteristics of emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs）， represented by the coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSG， regarding the item "recommendations" and its eight evaluation criteria in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS）. The World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs were used as reference to explore the characteristics of emergency HSGs that are different from non-emergency HSGs. The results showed that the “recommendations” scored second after “topic” among the five items. Criterion 7 relating to operability scored higher than others among the eight criteria， and criterion 3 dealing with ethical principles scored lower than other criteria. Compared with the standard HSGs， the emergency HSGs showed decreased scores （P<0.05） of the item recommendations and the criteria of this item except criterion 4 concerning equity promotion. Among the HSGs with different developers， those developed by the WHO had higher （P<0.05） scores of recommendations than nationally developed HSGs， as evidenced by criterion 4， criterion 5 involving acceptability to and alignment with sociocultural and political interests， and criterion 8 for updating plans. The HSGs regarding global or country strategy scored higher （P<0.05） on criterion 2 relating to comprehensiveness than those involving specific guidance on clinical or material issues. Overall， the emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， differ from the standard HSGs in a number of ways in terms of their recommendations. Emergency HSGs have more condensed content and weaker articulation of expected outcomes. They incline to put more emphasis on updating plans， rather than comprehensiveness or integrative requirements in terms of ethics， equity， and sociocultural and political interests.

The clear definition of the topic in emergency health systems guidance （HSG） ensures the relevance， scientific rigor， and practicality of the guidance， providing a clear direction and a framework for a rapid and effective public health response. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively evaluate the global COVID-19 emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs， aiming to explore the characteristics of topic in emergency HSGs. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included， the item topic received the highest score. Specifically， criterion 4 relating to relevant and applicable factors scored the highest （5.59）， while criterion 3 concerning the prioritization of health system challenges scored the lowest （2.76）. There were differences （P<0.05） in criterion 1 between standard HSGs and overall emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 3 also showed differences （P<0.05） between standard HSGs and emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 4 displayed differences （P<0.000 1） between WHO and national emergency HSGs. No differences were observed in intra-group or inter-group comparisons of different emergency HSG subcategories （P<0.05）. Overall， emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG focus on detailing the challenges faced by the health system， including the natures of challenges， affected populations， and other relevant and applicable factors， while aligning with stakeholder concerns. The prioritization is downplayed， with emphasis placed on rapid responses to and flexible handling of urgent issues. Influenced by factors such as the evidence base， phase timing， and effectiveness， the topic setting shows variations.

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.

ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility and rationality of applying relevant diagnostic and treatment programmes from textbooks as evidence in traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） diagnosis and treatment guidelines， using allergic rhinitis as an example. MethodsTextbooks published from October 1949 to December 2022， as well as TCM diagnosis and treatment guidelines published until December 2022 on allergic rhinitis were searched， and the contents of diagnosis and treatment related to allergic rhinitis were extracted. The similarities and differences between textbooks in different periods， between textbooks in different versions， and between textbooks and guidelines were compared and analyzed. ResultsA total of 12 national planning textbooks on TCM otolaryngology and 4 Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment guidelines on allergic rhinitis from 1975 to 2021 were included. The evolution of diagnostic and treatment programmes was shown by the textbooks in different periods. Since 2003， syndrome of latent heat in lung channel has been added in the published textbook， and TCM featured therapies， such as nasal packing， intranasal spray were enriched， as well as the contents related to prevention and prognosis. The main syndromes included lung qi deficiency and cold， spleen qi deficiency， kidney yang deficiency， and latent heat in lung meridian. The most common recommended prescriptions were Wenfei Zhiliu Pill （温肺止流丹）， Yupingfeng Powder （玉屏风散） and Cangerzi Powder （苍耳子散）； Buzhong Yiqi Decoction （补中益气汤）， Shenling Baizhu Powder （参苓白术散）； Shenqi Pill （肾气丸） or Zhenwu Decoction （真武汤）； Xinyi Qingfei Decoction （辛夷清肺饮）. A comparison of different versions of textbooks showed that the classification of syndromes was consistent， while the formulas were slightly different. The comparison between different versions of the current textbooks and the guidelines showed that the recommended prescriptions of the textbooks had more Cangerzi Powder， Xiaoqinglong Decoction （小青龙汤）， Zhenwu Decoction， etc.， while TCM featured therapies such as nose blowing， smelling， nasal plugging， nasal washing were enriched， and information on formula modification， prevention and adjustment， prognosis were also added， which can supplement the corresponding evidence for the guidelines. ConclusionTextbooks could serve as a strong supplement for the evidence-based development of TCM clinical guidelines. However， there is still a need for further research on the quality assessment system of textbook evidence to improve the credibility of its applicability of the guidelines evidence.

Objective:Analysis of the influencing factors of maternal oral health care behavior based on the health belief model.Methods:From July to December 2023, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in Peking Union Medical College Hospital on 316 pregnant women who received the health belief questionnaire and self-efficacy scale。 t test and χ2 test were used to analyze the factors affecting the oral health care behavior of pregnant women from the perspective of social psychology. Results:Among the 316 pregnant women included, 110(34.8%) had poor daily oral health care behavior, 120 (38.1%)did not have oral examination before or during pregnancy. The health beliefs of pregnant women in overall oral care were not high, with a score of 6.63+3.23, Median score is 7 (5).Perceived susceptibility to oral diseases ( OR=1.51, 95% CI:1.026-2.213), self-efficacy of daily living ( OR=2.64, 95% CI: 1.384-5.040), self-efficacy of oral examination ( OR=1.74, 95% CI:1.184-2.570) were independent factors of daily oral health care behavior in pregnant women. Health motivation ( OR=2.47, 95% CI:1.474-4.126) and self-efficacy of oral examination ( OR=4.17, 95% CI:2.626-6.619) were independent factors of oral examination behavior before and during pregnancy. Conclusion:Health beliefs of maternal oral health, especially perceived susceptibility, health motivation and self-efficacy are closely related to maternal oral health care behaviors. To improve the health belief and self-efficacy of pregnant women′s oral health care and avoid potential obstacles, which could be conducive to the effective promotion of oral health care for pregnant women.

Objective This study aims to systematically evaluate the experiences of patients with hematologic neoplasm undergoing chimeric antigen receptor T-cell(CAR-T)therapy and nursing care,and to provide a reference basis for healthcare providers to develop personalized intervention strategies.Methods PubMed,Web of Science,Embase,CINAHL,Cochrane Library,PsycINFO,Scopus,Australia Joanna Briggs Institute(JBI)EBP Database,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),Wanfang Data,VIP Database,and China Biology Medicine(CBM)Database were systematically searched for qualitative studies on the experiences of patients with hematologic neoplasm undergoing CAR-T therapy and nursing care.The search period extended up to September 2023.The quality of the literature was reviewed according to the JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument,and a pooled analysis was applied to integrate the results.Results A total of 15 studies were included,generating 76 findings,which were then organized into 8 categories,resulting in 3 integrated findings.(1)Patients experienced conflicting emotions,with expectations often at odds with reality,leading to emotional fluctuations:expectations about treatment were entangled with concerns about risks;emotions fluctuated with expectations and actual experiences.(2)Patients experienced physical and social functional impairments,but as the disease eased,normal functioning recovered:rapid decline and improvement in physical functions;loss and recovery of social functions.(3)Patients desired access to professional guidance and psychosocial support.Conclusion Patients undergoing CAR-T therapy often contend with emotional conflicts.Changes in physical and social functions after the completion of treatment result in needs for seeking comprehensive medical and nursing support.It is recommended that healthcare providers conduct dynamic assessments and interventions regarding patients'emotional states before treatment,focus on early identification and management of adverse reactions after treatment,and offer continuous nursing services after discharge to enhance patients'confidence in participating in CAR-T therapy and improve their overall quality of life.