The prescription of Qidong Yixin oral liquid is derived from the experience of national medical master Ren Jixue in treating viral myocarditis （VMC）. It has the functions of tonifying Qi， nourishing the heart，calming the mind， and relieving palpitations. It is used to treat VMC and angina pectoris of coronary heart disease caused by deficiency of both Qi and Yin. However，the understanding of its efficacy evidence， advantageous aspects， dosage and administration， and medication safety remains insufficient in clinical practice. Therefore，the development of the Expert Consensus on the Clinical Application of Qidong Yixin Oral Liquid （hereinafter referred to as consensus） was initiated. Consensus strictly followed the process and methods of the expert consensus on the clinical application of Chinese patent medicines of the China Association of Chinese Medicine，successively completing multiple tasks such as the consensus project initiation，determination of clinical problems，evidence search and evaluation，formation of recommendation opinions and consensus suggestions，solicitation of opinions，peer review， submission for review and release， and so on. Consensus formed a total of 10 recommendation opinions and 12 consensus suggestions，clarifying the clinical positioning，efficacy advantages，syndrome differentiation，dosage and administration，combination therapy，timing of medication，adverse reactions，contraindications， and precautions of Qidong Yixin oral liquid，indicating that it has good clinical advantages and safety in the treatment of VMC and angina pectoris of coronary heart disease，providing norms and references for physicians to safely and rationally apply Qidong Yixin oral liquid. Consensus was reviewed and approved for release by the Standardization Office of the China Association of Chinese Medicine on December 23， 2024. Standard number：GSCACM-376-2024.

ObjectiveTo establish the self-reported core outcome set （COS） for patients with an example of a community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion for primary hypertension （PH）， to provide a reference for the selection of effectiveness evaluation indicators in community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion. MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to collect outcomes used in randomized controlled trials and systematic review of heat-sensitive moxibustion for PH （Jan 2021）， and additional outcomes were added through patient and expert questionnaires （Feb 2021） to create a pool of outcome entries. A multidisciplinary expert Delphi survey was conducted to screen outcomes applicable to patient self-reporting （Apr 2021）， and the importance of outcome indicators was rated on a 5-Point Likert Scale. Finally， patient self-reported COS was determined through a consensus conference （June 2021）. ResultsA pool of patient self-reported indicators in the community study of heat-sensitive moxibustion treatment for PH was generated by standardizing and combining the outcome indicators based on the results of the literature search and the questionnaire survey， which consisted of totally 100 measurement tools or contents， excluding 51 indicators or measurement tools required measurement by specialized physicians or hospital equipment， and 49 items were retained to enter the initial list of indicator entries. For the first round of Delphi survey， the mean score for expert familiarity was 0.819， the mean score for basis of judgment was 0.710， and the expert authority coefficient was 0.765， with a total of 21 indicator measurement tools or contents deleted （significance score ≤ 75 or coefficient of variation ＞ 0.25）， 28 retained， and 3 new expert-added indicator entries added. In the second round of Delphi survey， the average score for expert familiarity was 0.859， the average score for basis for judgment was 0.763， and the expert authority coefficient was 0.811， with a total of 11 indicator measurement tools or contents deleted and 20 retained involving 5 domains. Following an expert consensus meeting， 8 outcome indicators were finalized for inclusion in the patient self-reported COS， including 6 indicators of effectiveness evaluation such as quality-of-life scores， blood pressure， traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores， cost-benefit， cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events， and adverse reactions/events， and 2 indicators of factors influencing effectiveness such as sensation of heat-sensitive moxibustion， and adherence. ConclusionIn this study， we initially established a criteria for evaluating the effectiveness in the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion by constructing patient self-reported COS in the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion for PH， which can provide a scientific research paradigm for the subsequent development of the community study on heat-sensitive moxibustion.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.