AIM: To investigate the relationship between Apelin and δ-like ligand 4(DLL4)expression levels and clinical stage and efficacy in patients with neovascular glaucoma(NVG).METHODS: A total of 96 NVG patients(96 eyes)who were admitted to our hospital from January 2022 to March 2024(NVG group)and 96 cataract patients(96 eyes)who underwent cataract surgery in our hospital during the same period(control group)were selected. NVG patients were divided into stage Ⅰ group(22 eyes), stage Ⅱ group(47 eyes)and stage Ⅲ group(27 eyes)according to the clinical stage; furthermore, patients were divided into ineffective group(20 eyes)and effective group(76 eyes)according to efficacy. Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The influencing factors of the efficacy in NVG patients were analyzed by multivariate unconditional Logistic regression analysis, the evaluation efficiency of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels on the efficacy in NVG patients was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve.RESULTS: Compared with the control group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the NVG group were increased(all P<0.001). Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ and stage Ⅲ groups increased in turn(all P<0.001). The effective rate of 96 NVG patients was 79.2%(76/96). Compared with the effective group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the ineffective group increased(all P<0.001). Clinical stage III, high intraocular pressure, high Apelin and DLL4 were independent risk factors for ineffective treatment in NVG patients(all P<0.05). The area under the curve of the combined evaluation of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients was 0.874, which was greater than 0.790 and 0.786 of aqueous Apelin and DLL4 levels alone(all P<0.05).CONCLUSION: Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in NVG patients increase, which relate to the increase of clinical stage and poor efficacy, and the combination of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels is more effective in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients.

Fibromyalgia syndrome （FMS） is a refractory， chronic non-articular rheumatic disease characterized by widespread pain throughout the body， for which there are no satisfactory therapeutic drugs or options. There are rich Chinese medical therapies， and some non-drug therapies， such as acupuncture， Tai Chi， and Ba-Duan-Jin， have shown satisfactory efficacy and safety and definite advantages of simultaneously adjusting mind and body. FMS is taken as a disease responding specifically to traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） by the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine in 2018. In order to clarify the research progress in FMS and the clinical advantages of TCM/integrated Chinese and Western medicine， the China Academy of Chinese Medicine organized a seminar for nearly 20 experts in Chinese and Western medicine， including rheumatology， psychology， acupuncture and moxibustion， and encephalopathy， with the topic of difficulties in clinical diagnosis and treatment of FMS and advantages of TCM and Western medicine. The recommendations were reached on the difficulties in early diagnosis and solutions of FMS， mitigation of common non-specific symptoms， preferential analgesic therapy， TCM pathogenesis and treatment advantages， and direction of treatment with integrated Chinese and Western medicine. FMS is currently facing the triple dilemma of low early correct diagnosis， poor patient participation， and unsatisfactory benefit from pure Western medicine treatment. To solve the above problems， this paper suggests that rheumatologists should serve as the main diagnostic force of this disease， and they should improve patient participation in treatment decision-making， implement exercise therapy， and fully utilize the holistic and multidimensional features of TCM， which is effective in alleviating pain， improving mood， and decreasing adverse events. In addition， it is suggested that FMS treatment should rely on both TCM and Western medicine and adopt multidisciplinary joint treatment， which is expected to improve the standard of diagnosis and treatment of FMS in China.

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.

Objective To analyze the prevalence, annual trends, and co-morbidity trends of common chronic diseases among workers in a large automotive industry from 2019 to 2021, and to provide a scientific basis for the health management of workers in the automotive industry. Methods The health examination data of workers in a large automotive industry from 2019-2021 were analyzed. Trends in the prevalence of chronic diseases and co-morbidities were analyzed using Join Point software and trend χ² test. Results The prevalence of metabolic syndrome, hyperuricemia, and fatty liver in the 2019 – 2021 health checkups of workers in this enterprise increased at an average rate of 9.27%, 11.35%, and 3.99% per year, respectively. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome, hyperuricemia, and fatty liver in male workers showed an increasing trend at an average rate of 7.05%, 9.25%, and 2.91% per year, respectively. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in female workers showed an increasing trend at an average rate of 20.76% per year. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome, hyperuricemia and fatty liver was on the rise in the age groups ≤ 29 years old and 40 – 49 years old. The proportion of metabolic syndrome and its co-morbidity with one or two common chronic diseases showed an increasing trend. Conclusion The prevalence and co-morbidity of common chronic diseases in this enterprise are generally on the rise. The enterprise should focus on health education and preventive care for chronic diseases among workers aged ≤ 29 and 40 – 49 years old and male workers and control the annual increasing trend of metabolic syndrome among female workers and workers in the age group ≤ 29 years.

Sleep disturbance is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease(PD),which seriously affects the quality of patients'life.Bright light therapy is a treatment that uses daylight or artificial light to regulate circadian rhythms.Recent studies have shown that bright light therapy may have effect on PD-related sleep disorders,but the mechanism is still unclear.Due to the influence of many factors,there is no unified standard to guide the application of bright light therapy.Based on this,this article reviews the mechanism and application of bright light therapy in the treatment of PD-related sleep disorders.