Objective To compare the technical indicators and clinical effect of catheter-directed thrombolysis(CDT)via two types of non-popliteal venous access in the treatment of acute mixed-type lower extremity deep vein thrombosis(DVT).Methods The clinical data of 119 patients with acute mixed-type lower extremity DVT,who were admitted to the Affiliated Jiangning Hospital of Nanjing Medical University and the Affiliated Nanjing Hospital of Nanjing Medical University of China to receive CDT treatment from January 2016 to June 2022,were retrospectively analyzed.Of the 119 patients,CDT via deep calf vein access was carries out in 45(calf vein group)and CDT via healthy-side femoral venous access was performed in 74(femoral vein group).The success rate of vascular puncture,success rate of catheterization technique,number of successful CDT venous puncturing,time spent for sheath placement,time spent for catheterization,thrombolysis time,used amount of thrombolytic agent and associated complications(including vein puncturing and anticoagulant thrombolysis-related complications),the thrombolytic effect of different anatomical segments,and the clinical efficacy during the follow-up period for at least 12 months were compared between the two groups.Results Successful catheterization via deep calf vein access and via healthy-side femoral vein access was obtained in 31 and 58 CDT patients respectively,with a technical success rate of 68.89％(31/45)and 78.38％(58/74)respectively,the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(P=0.248).In 26 patients(67.74％)of the calf vein group,more than two times of puncturing were needed before the sheath placement could be successfully achieved.The time spent for sheath placement in the femoral vein group was(1.84±0.87)min,which was remarkably shorter than(10.52+6.13)min in the calf vein group(P＜0.001),but the time spent for catheterization in the femoral vein group was(41.60±13.31)min,which was obviously longer than(20.06+4.46)min in the calf vein group(P＜0.001).The thrombolysis time in the femoral vein group and the calf vein group was(5.34+1.43)days and(5.06±1.18)days respectively(P=0.354),and the used amount of thrombolytic agent in the femoral vein group was(352.16±71.98)×104 U,which was prominently larger than(284.68±77.64)× 104 U in the calf vein group(P＜0.001).The last follow-up check showed that the patency rate of the popliteal vein in the calf vein group was significantly higher than that in the femoral vein group(P=0.037).No statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome(PTS)and the mean VEINES-QOL/Sym scores existed between the two groups(all P＞0.05).Conclusion Compared with CDT via healthy-side femoral vein access,CDT via deep calf vein access can better remove the thrombus in the popliteal vein and superficial femoral vein,and improve the femoropopliteal vein patency rate,although it has no obvious advantages in reducing the occurrence of PTS and in improving the VEINES-QOL/Sym score,moreover,the deep calf vein puncture and sheath placement require a high-level technique.

Objective:To investigate the prognosis of patients with initially resectable gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) who were treated by different modalities, and analyze the influencing factors for prognosis of patients.Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 327 patients with initially resectable GCLM who were included in the database of a nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study on GCLM based on real-world data from January 2010 to December 2019 were collected. There were 267 males and 60 females, aged 61(54,68)years. According to the specific situations of patients, treatment modalities included radical surgery combined with systemic treatment, palliative surgery combined with systemic treatment, and systemic treatment alone. Observation indicators: (1) clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities; (2) prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities; (3) analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM; (4) screening of potential beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the independent sample t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M( Q1, Q3), and comparison between groups was conducted using the rank sum test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi-square test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and draw survival curve, and Log-Rank test was used for survival analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using the COX proportional hazard regression model. The propensity score matching was employed by the 1:1 nearest neighbor matching method with a caliper value of 0.1. The forest plots were utilized to evaluate potential benefits of diverse surgical combined with systemic treatments within the population. Results:(1) Clinical characteristics of patients who were treated by different modalities. Of 327 patients, there were 118 cases undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, 164 cases undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment, and 45 cases undergoing systemic treatment alone. There were significant differences in smoking, drinking, site of primary gastric tumor, diameter of primary gastric tumor, site of liver metastasis, and metastatic interval among the three groups of patients ( P<0.05). (2) Prognostic outcomes of patients who were treated by different modalities. The median overall survival time of the 327 pati-ents was 19.9 months (95% confidence interval as 14.9-24.9 months), with 1-, 3-year overall survival rate of 61.3%, 32.7%, respectively. The 1-year overall survival rates of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment, palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and systemic treatment alone were 68.3%, 63.1%, 30.6%, and the 3-year overall survival rates were 41.1%, 29.9%, 11.9%, showing a significant difference in overall survival rate among the three groups of patients ( χ2=19.46, P<0.05). Results of further analysis showed that there was a significant difference in overall survival rate between patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients undergoing systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.40, 95% confidence interval as 0.26-0.61, P<0.05), between patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment and patients under-going systemic treatment alone ( hazard ratio=0.47, 95% confidence interval as 0.32-0.71, P<0.05). (3) Analysis of influencing factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. Results of multivariate analysis showed that the larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differentiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases were independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=1.20, 1.70, 1.20, 2.06, 95% confidence interval as 1.14-1.27, 1.25-2.31, 1.04-1.42, 1.45-2.92, P<0.05) and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy were independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM ( hazard ratio=0.60, 0.39, 0.46, 95% confidence interval as 0.42-0.87, 0.25-0.60, 0.30-0.70, P<0.05). (4) Screening of potentinal beneficiaries in patients who were treated by radical surgery plus systemic treatment and patients who were treated by palliative surgery plus systemic treatment. Results of forest plots analysis showed that for patients with high-moderate differentiated GCLM and patients with liver metastasis located in the left liver, the overall survival rate of patients undergoing radical surgery plus systemic treatment was better than patients undergoing palliative surgery plus systemic treatment ( hazard ratio=0.21, 0.42, 95% confidence interval as 0.09-0.48, 0.23-0.78, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared to systemic therapy alone, both radical and palliative surgery plus systemic therapy can improve the pro-gnosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM. The larger primary gastric tumor, poorly differen-tiated tumor, larger liver metastasis, multiple hepatic metastases are independent risk factors for prognosis of patients with initial resectable GCLM and immunotherapy or targeted therapy, the treatment modality of radical or palliative surgery plus systemic therapy are independent protective factors for prognosis of patients with initially resectable GCLM.

OBJECTIVE To improve the quality evaluation method of Platycodonis Radix, to study the differences in the quality of three-years-old Platycodonis Radix under different harvesting periods, and to determine the optimal harvesting period of Platycodonis Radix. METHODS The leachate, ash, moisture, refractive index and the content of six saponins were used as the quality evaluation indexes. The differences between the herbs of Platycodonis Radix at different harvesting periods were characterized with the help of mathematical and statistical methods. And link the entropy weight method, gray correlation analysis and TOPSIS method were combined to obtain the statistical analysis of the relevant indexes and the quality ranking information of the herbs in different harvesting periods. RESULTS There were significant differences between the quality evaluation indexes of three-years-old Platycodonis Radix at different harvesting periods. The added multi-indicator testing had improved the quality evaluation system of Platycodonis Radix and enhanced the "Drug properties-Effectiveness" linkage of the herbs. And the results of the comprehensive quality evaluation model showed that the herbs harvested around October 21 (Frost’s Descent) were ranked best in terms of comprehensive index. CONCLUSION In order to ensure the quality of Platycodonis Radix, the best harvesting period for three-years-old Platycodonis Radix is determined around the "Frost’s Descent" season, taking into account the characteristics of the herbs' appearance and the material basis of herbs.

Objective: To provide high-quality clinical evidence of the efficacy of Tibetan medicine Honghua Ruyi (HHRY) pills for endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea. Methods: This study constitutes a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial encompassing a three-menstrual cycle intervention followed by a three-menstrual cycle follow-up period. A total of 164 eligible females with endometriosis-associated dysmenorrhea were randomly divided into HHRY pills and placebo groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome included dysmenorrhea symptoms assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and quality of life, whereas the secondary outcome measures included the maximum VAS for non-menstrual pelvic pain, duration of pain episodes (in days), frequency and quantity of the consumption of ibuprofen sustained-release capsules (or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), and days off work/study for staff/student due to dysmenorrhea, ovarian cyst, and/or pelvic nodule size. The safety was monitored throughout the treatment period. All the analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. For continuous outcomes, simple or multiple linear regressions were used to estimate the differences between the HHRY pills and placebo groups, with categorical data expressed as the number and percentage of occurrences. Differences were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The predefined analysis was adjusted for concomitant treatment, a variable considered to be associated with outcomes but unaffected by treatment allocation. Estimates of treatment effects were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Two-tailed P values ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant. Conclusion Positive results from this trial, upon completion would provide robust evidence for the efficacy and safety of HHRY pills in treating dysmenorrhea in patients with endometriosis.

Objective To explore the efficacy of negative pressure ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope(UAS+FRUS)in the treatment of renal calculi of 2-3 cm,so as to provide reference for the treatment.Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 130 cases of renal calculi of 2-3 cm treated with surgery in Xiamen Third Hospital during Sep.2021 and Sep.2023,including 68 cases with UAS+FRUS and 62 cases with super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy(SMP).The perioperative indexes and stone-clearance rate(SFR)were compared between the two groups.Results All operations were successful.There were no statistically significant differences in the total SFR and incidence of complications(5.88％vs.9.67％)between the two groups 3 days(88.24％vs.90.32％)and 1 month(91.18％vs.93.55％)after surgery(P＞0.05).For patients with lower calyceal calculi with infundibulopelvic angle(IPA)＜45°,the SFR of the UAS+FRUS group was significantly lower than that of the SMP group(57.14％vs.100％,P＜0.05).The UAS+FRUS group had a longer operation time than the SMP group[(104.94±8.79)minutes vs.(77.98±6.60)minutes,P＜0.001],higher hospitalization costs[(23 112.82±1152.34)yuan vs.(21 975.84±1512.24)yuan,P＜0.001],less postoperative decrease in hemoglobin[(6.71±2.07)g/L vs.(9.81±4.80)g/L,P＜0.001],and shorter postoperative hospitalization time[(3.28±0.51)d vs.(5.58±0.71)d,P＜0.001].The UAS+FRUS group had lower postoperative VAS score at 6,24,and 48 hours than the SMP group[(6.38±0.69)vs.(7.87±0.88);(3.62±0.73)vs.(5.81±0.83)and(3.12±0.33)vs.(3.81±0.60)],with statistical significance(P＜0.05).Conclusion Both surgical methods have a high SFR in the treatment of renal calculi of 2-3 cm.SMP has the advantages of short operation time,low hospitalization costs,and high SFR for lower calyx calculi,while UAS+FURS has the advantages of little bleeding,minimal trauma,and short hospital stay.Surgeons can make reasonable choices based on the patients'condition and willingness,combined with their own surgical experience.

Objective:To examine the impact of varied surgical treatment strategies on the prognosis of patients with initial resectable gastric cancer liver metastases (IR-GCLM).Methods:This is a retrospective cohort study. Employing a retrospective cohort design, the study selected clinicopathological data from the national multi-center retrospective cohort study database, focusing on 282 patients with IR-GCLM who underwent surgical intervention between January 2010 and December 2019. There were 231 males and 51 males, aging ( M(IQR)) 61 (14) years (range: 27 to 80 years). These patients were stratified into radical and palliative treatment groups based on treatment decisions. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distinctions in survival rates were assessed using the Log-rank test. The Cox risk regression model evaluated HR for various factors, controlling for confounders through multivariate analysis to comprehensively evaluate the influence of surgery on the prognosis of IR-GCLM patients. A restricted cubic spline Cox proportional hazard model assessed and delineated intricate associations between measured variables and prognosis. At the same time, the X-tile served as an auxiliary tool to identify critical thresholds in the survival analysis for IR-GCLM patients. Subgroup analysis was then conducted to identify potential beneficiary populations in different surgical treatments. Results:(1) The radical group comprised 118 patients, all undergoing R0 resection or local physical therapy of primary and metastatic lesions. The palliative group comprised 164 patients, with 52 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors and liver metastases, 56 cases undergoing radical resections for gastric primary tumors only, 45 cases undergoing palliative resections for gastric primary tumors, and 11 cases receiving palliative treatments for liver metastases. A statistically significant distinction was observed between the groups regarding the site and the number of liver metastases (both P<0.05). (2) The median overall survival (OS) of the 282 patients was 22.7 months (95% CI: 17.8 to 27.6 months), with 1-year and 3-year OS rates were 65.4% and 35.6%, respectively. The 1-year OS rates for patients in the radical surgical group and palliative surgical group were 68.3% and 63.1%, while the corresponding 3-year OS rates were 42.2% and 29.9%, respectively. A comparison of OS between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference ( P=0.254). Further analysis indicated that patients undergoing palliative gastric cancer resection alone had a significantly worse prognosis compared to other surgical options ( HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21 to 3.24, P=0.006). (3) The size of the primary gastric tumor significantly influenced the patients′ prognosis ( HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.79, P<0.01), with HR showing a progressively increasing trend as tumor size increased. (4) Subgroup analysis indicates that radical treatment may be more effective compared to palliative treatment in the following specific cases: well/moderately differentiated tumors ( HR=2.84, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.41, P=0.001), and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver ( HR=2.06, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.57, P=0.010). Conclusions:In patients with IR-GCLM, radical surgery did not produce a significant improvement in the overall prognosis compared to palliative surgery. However, within specific patient subgroups (well/moderately differentiated tumors, and patients with liver metastases located in the left lobe of the liver), radical treatment can significantly improve prognosis compared to palliative approaches.

Standardized reporting is a crucial factor affecting the use of patient guidelines （PGs）， particularly in the reporting and presentation of recommendations. This paper introduced the current status of PG reporting， including the research on PG content and presentation formats， and provided comprehensive recommendations for PG reporting from aspects such as overall framework， recommendations， presentation format， and readability. First， the presentation of PG recommendations should include clearly defined clinical questions， recommendations and their rationale， and guidance on how patients should implement the interventions； for specific content in the PG， such as level of evidence， level of recommendation， it is recommended to explain in text the reasons for giving different levels of recommendation， i.e.， to present the logic behind giving the level of recommendation to the patient； additional information needed in the recommendation framework should be supplemented by tracing references or authoritative textbooks and literature that support the recommendations. Subsequently， the PG text should be written based on the Reporting Checklist for Public Versions of Guidelines （RIGHT-PVG） reporting framework. Finally， to enhance readability and comprehension， it is recommended to refer to the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool （PEMAT） for translating PG content. To enhance the readability of PGs， it is suggested to present the PG content in a persona-lized and layered manner.

ObjectiveTo adapt the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale（SETS） into Chinese（C-SETS） and test the feasibility， validity and reliability of its application in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome（IBS-D） with liver-constraint and spleen-deficiency syndrome treated with traditional Chinese medicine（TCM）. MethodsWe obtained authorisation from the developer of the SETS， and followed the principle of "two-way translation" to translate the SETS by literal translation and back translation to form the C-SETS. Ninety-six IBS-D patients with liver-constraint and spleen-deficiency syndrome were enrolled as respondents and filled out C-SETS before receiving treatment； the feasibility was assessed by the recall rate， completion rate and the duration of filling out the scale； the reliability was assessed by Cronbach's α； the structural validity was assessed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis， and the content validity was assessed by correlation analysis. ResultsThe C-SETS consists of 10 items， with the 1st， 3rd， and 5th rating items constituting the Positive Expectations subscale， and the 2nd， 4th， and 6th rating items constituting the Negative Expectations subscale， each of which is rated on a 7-point Likert Scale. The recall of C-SETS was 100%（96/96）， the completion rate was 89.58%（86/96）； Cronbach's α for the Positive and Negative Treatment Expectations subscales were 0.845 and 0.854， respectively； exploratory factor analysis showed that the coefficient of commonality for all six entries was larger than 0.4， and that the six entries could be used by both factors to explain 77.092% of the total variance； validation factor analysis showed that the goodness-of-fit index， comparative fit index， root mean square of approximation error， canonical fit coefficient， and chi-square degrees of freedom ratio took the values of 0.943， 1.003， 0， 0.943， and 0.626， respectively； and the results of Spearman's analysis suggested that the C-SETS had good content validity. ConclusionThe C-SETS has well feasibility， reliability， and validity， which initially proves that it can be used as a tool to assess the treatment expectation of patients with IBS-D with liver-constraint and spleen-deficiency syndrome before receiving TCM treatment.

Since the concept of patient versions of guidelines （PVGs） was introduced into China， several PVGs have been published in China， but we found that there is a big difference between the concept of PVG at home and abroad， and the reason for this difference has not been reasonably explained， which has led to ambiguity and even misapplication of the PVG concept by guideline developers. By analyzing the background and purpose of PVGs， and the understanding of the PVG concept by domestic scholars， we proposed the term patient guidelines （PGs）. This refers to guidelines developed under the principles of evidence-based medicine， centered on health issues that concern patients， and based on the best available evidence， intended for patient use. Except for the general attribute of providing information or education， which is typical of common health education materials， PGs also provide recommendations and assist in decision-making， so PGs include both the patient versions of guidelines （PVG） as defined by the Guidelines International Network （GIN） and "patient-directed guidelines"， i.e. clinical practice guidelines resulting from the adaptation or reformulation of recommendations through clinical practice guidelines.

At present， the process and methodology of patient guidelines （PGs） development varies greatly and lacks systematic and standardised guidance. In addition to the interviews with PG developers， we have sorted out the relevant methodology for the adaptation and development of existing clinical practice guideline recommendations and facilitated expert deliberations to achieve a consensus， so as to finally put forward a proposal for guidance on the process and methodology for the development of PGs. The development of PGs can be divided into the preparation stage， the construction stage， and the completion stage in general， but the specific steps vary according to the different modes of development of PGs. The development process of Model 1 is basically the same as the patient version of the guideline development process provided by the International Guidelines Network， i.e.， team formation， screening of recommendations， guideline drafing， user testing and feedback， approval and dissemination. The developer should also first determine the need for and scope of translating the clinical practice guideline into a patient version during the preparation phase. Model 2 adds user experience and feedback to the conventional clinical practice guideline development process （forming a team， determining the scope of the PG， searching， evaluating and integrating evidence， forming recommendations， writing the guideline， and expert review）. Based on the different models， we sort out the process and methods of PG development and introduce the specific methods of PG development， including how to identify the clinical problem and how to form recommendations based on the existing clinical practice guidelines， with a view to providing reference for guideline developers and related researchers.