Animal experimentation constitutes a critical link between basic research and clinical application, making its research quality and translational efficiency paramount. Although considerable progress has been made in standardizing operational procedures and ethical guidelines, the standardization of outcome evaluation systems has significantly lagged, creating a key bottleneck that constrains the quality of biomedical research and evidence synthesis. This deficiency is manifested by pronounced heterogeneity in outcome selection across similar studies, incomplete methodological reporting, and disparate criteria for result interpretation, which severely impairs the comparability of findings and the evidence integration. To cope with this challenge, this paper systematically introduces a mature methodological tool from clinical research–the core outcome set (COS)–and explores its construction strategies and application potential in the field of animal experimentation. Given the extensive diversity of animal experiments, a pragmatic strategy of "focusing on key areas, implementing phased pilots, and promoting gradual expansion" should be adopted. This approach prioritizes the development of domain-specific COS for disease areas characterized by high research volume, urgent translational needs, and well-established animal models. A multi-source integration pathway for COS development is detailed, comprising systematic literature searches, methodological appraisals, and expert consensus, with the feasibility of leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance efficiency also being examined. The development and promotion of such COS are not intended to restrict scientific exploration; rather, they aim to establish a new, tiered evaluation paradigm consisting of "core outcomes" (mandatory), "recommended outcomes" (encouraged), and "exploratory outcomes" (optional). This framework is expected not only to enhance research quality through standardization and to adhere to the "3R" principles but also to accelerate the accumulation of high-quality evidence. This, in turn, provides a solid foundation for higher-level evidence synthesis, ultimately facilitating the effective translation of basic research findings into clinical practice and providing an essential methodological framework for scientific advancement in relevant disciplines.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the therapeutic effect and mechanism of Qiwei dongqingye powder （QDP） on bronchial asthma in mice. METHODS The mice were divided into blank group （normal saline）， model group （normal saline）， dexamethasone group （2 mg/kg）， and QDP low-， medium-， and high-dose groups （200， 400， 800 mg/kg）， with 14 mice in each group. Except for the blank group， mice in all other groups were given ovalbumin via intraperitoneal injection followed by aerosol inhalation to induce a bronchial asthma model. During the modeling process， mice in each group were administered corresponding drug solutions or normal saline intragastrically/intraperitoneally. After the last medication， the number of cells in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid （BALF） of the mice was observed and counted； the pathological changes of the bronchus and lung tissue were observed； the levels of malondialdehyde （MDA）， nitric oxide （NO）， total superoxide dismutase （T-SOD）， and glutathione peroxidase （GSH-Px） in the lung tissue of the mice were determined， and the level of interleukin-17 （IL-17） in the BALF and serum was determined. Transcriptomics was employed to predict and validate the mechanism of action of QDP against bronchial asthma. RESULTS Compared with the model group， the total cell count， neutrophil count， lymphocyte count， and macrophage counts in the BALF of the QDP high-dose group were all significantly reduced （ P ＜0.05）； the levels of MDA and NO in the lung tissue， and the levels of IL-17 in the BALF and serum were all decreased significantly （ P ＜0.05）； the levels of T-SOD and GSH-Px were significantly increased （ P ＜0.05）； the arrangement of lung tissue cells tended to normalize， with reduced infiltration of inflammatory cells and decreased exfoliation of bronchial simple columnar epithelial cells. The transcriptomic results revealed that the differentially expressed genes were B-cell receptor signaling pathway， nuclear factor κB （NF-κB） signaling pathway， ferroptosis signaling pathway， and others. Further validation revealed that， compared with the model group， the expression levels of NF-κB p65 and chemokine ligand 20， as well as the phosphorylation level of NF-κB inhibitor protein α， were significantly decreased in the lung tissues of the mice in all QDP groups （ P ＜0.05）. Conversely， the protein expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 （Nrf2） and heme oxygenase 1 （HO-1） were significantly increased （ P ＜0.05）. CONCLUSIONS QDP can effectively alleviate bronchial asthma by inhibiting the NF-κB signaling pathway， activating the Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway， regulating oxidative stress， and reducing inflammatory responses.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the influence of pharmaceutical quality control on the efficiency and outcomes of standardized medication therapy management （MTM） services for patients with coronary heart disease by using Economic， Clinical and Humanistic Outcomes （ECHO） model. METHODS This study collected case data of coronary heart disease patients who received MTM services during January-March 2023 （pre-quality control implementation group， n＝96） and June-August 2023 （post-quality control implementation group， n＝164）. Using propensity score matching analysis， 80 patients were selected from each group. The study subsequently compared the economic， clinical， and humanistic outcome indicators of pharmaceutical services between the two matched groups. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences in baseline data between the two groups after matching （P＞0.05）. Compared with pre-quality control implementation group， the daily treatment cost （16.26 yuan vs. 24.40 yuan， P＜0.001）， cost-effectiveness ratio [23.12 yuan/quality-adjusted life year （QALY） vs. 32.32 yuan/QALY， P＜0.001]， and the incidence of general adverse drug reactions （2.50% vs. 10.00%， P＝0.049） of post-quality control implementation group were decreased significantly； the utility value of the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire （0.74± 0.06 vs. 0.71±0.07， P＝0.003）， the reduction in the number of medication related problems （1.0 vs. 0.5， P＜0.001）， the medication adherence score （[ 6.32±0.48） points vs. （6.10±0.37） points， P＝0.001]， and the satisfaction score （[ 92.56±1.52） points vs. （91.95±1.56） points， P＝0.013] all showed significant improvements. Neither group experienced serious adverse drug reactions. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of new adverse reactions between the two groups （1.25% vs. 3.75%， P＝0.310）. CONCLUSIONS Pharmaceutical quality control can improve the quality of pharmaceutical care， and the ECHO model can quantitatively evaluate the effect of MTM services， making pharmaceutical care better priced and more adaptable to social needs， thus being worthy of promotion.

To introduce and analyze guideline terminology related to clinical question formulation, evidence retrieval and appraisal, and recommendation development.

Animal experiments are essential tools in biomedical research, serving as a bridge between basic research and clinical trials. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal experiments are crucial methods for integrating evidence from animal experiment, which can facilitate the translation of findings into clinical research, reduce translational risks, and promote resource integration in basic research. With the continuous development of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, its application in SRs/MAs of animal experiments has gained increasing attention. This article first outlines the principles and specific applications of the GRADE methodology in SRs/MAs of animal experiments, including qualitative descriptive systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. It then deeply analyzes the misuse of the GRADE methodology in practice, including incorrect evidence grading, improper classification of evidence, misapplication in qualitative systematic reviews, inconsistencies between the documentation of the upgrading and downgrading process and results, and inappropriate use for making recommendations. Furthermore, this article comprehensively discusses the factors influencing the grading of evidence certainty in SRs/MAs of animal experiments, including the impact of bias risk, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias on evidence downgrading, as well as the role of large effect sizes and cross-species consistency in evidence upgrading. Finally, in response to the issues discussed, improvement strategies are proposed, including further research and optimization of the GRADE methodology for SRs/MAs of animal experiments, the development of reporting guidelines tailored to the characteristics of SRs/MAs in animal experiment research, and enhanced professional training for researchers in the GRADE methodology. This article aims to improve the quality of evidence in SRs/MAs of animal experiments, strengthen their reliability in clinical decision-making, and promote the more efficient translation of findings from animal experiment research into clinical practice.

To develop a guideline terminology system and promote its standardization, thereby enhancing medical staff's accurate understanding and correct application of guidelines.

OBJECTIVE To standardize the main processes and related technical links of the clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs， and provide guidance and reference for improving the quality of comprehensive evaluation evidence and its transformation and application value. METHODS The construction of Guideline for the Workflow of Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs was based on the standard guideline formulation method of the World Health Organization （WHO）， strictly followed the latest definition of guidelines by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States， and conformed to the six major areas of the Guideline Research and Evaluation Tool Ⅱ. Delphi method was adopted to construct the research questions； research evidence was established by applying the research methods of evidence-based medicine. The evidence quality classification system of the Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center was adopted for evidence classification and evaluation. The recommendation strength was determined by the recommendation strength classification standard formulated by the Oxford University Evidence-Based Medicine Center， and the recommendation opinions were formed through the expert consensus method. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS The Guideline for the Workflow of Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs covers 4 major categories of research questions， including topic selection， evaluation implementation， evidence evaluation， and application and transformation of results. The formulation of this guideline has standardized the technical links of the entire process of clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs， which can effectively guide the high-quality and high-efficient development of this work， enhance the standardized output and transformation application value of evaluation evidence， and provide high-quality evidence support for the scientific decision-making of health and the rationalization of clinical medication.

To explore the role of the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" column and others in the Medical Joumnal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (Med J PUMCH) in promoting diseiplinary development.

ObjectiveTo investigate the perceived experience and acceptance of intrapartum ultrasound （IPUS） as a novel method for labor progress assessment among pregnant women. MethodsFrom February 2023 to December 2024， a total of 180 pregnant women admitted to the Labor Ward of Lingnan Hospital， the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University， who were planned for vaginal trial of labor ， were accessed for labor progress using IPUS and vaginal examination （VE） after the onset of labor and prior to the initiation n of labor analgesia. A self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the women's perceived experiences with both examination methods and their acceptance of IPUS. The pain intensity associated with the examinations was evaluated using the visual analogue pain scale （VAS）. Differences in the women's experiences and pain intensity between the two labor progress assessment methods were compared. ResultsThe acceptance rate of IPUS was 96.67% （174/180）， with the remaining 6 cases undecided. Over 60% of the pregnant women reported IPUS assessment as comfortable and none of them felt discomfort， whereas 32.8% felt uncomfortable with VE （χ²=196.02， P＜0.001）. Nearly two-thirds of the pregnant women believed that VE would cause psychological distress， while none reported such effect with IPUS （χ²=261.52， P＜0.001）. Approximately 77.78% （140/180） of the pregnant women believed that IPUS could reduce their fear of vaginal delivery and enhance their confidence if it replaced VE. The VAS score for IPUS ［0 （0， 2）］ was significantly lower than that for VE ［4 （4， 6）］ （Z=-14.62， P＜0.001）. Further stratified analysis showed that over 90% （164/180） of the pregnant women found IPUS painless， with no moderate or severe pain reported， compared to 43.33% （78/180） experienced moderate or severe pain with VE （P＜0.001）. ConclusionAs a novel approach for labor progress assessment， IPUS not only alleviates the pain and discomfort associated with traditional VE and reduces the fear of childbirth but also enhances women's confidence in delivery， thereby achieving a high level of acceptance among parturient women in China.

Animal experiments are an essential component of life sciences and medical research. However, the external validity and reliability of individual animal studies are frequently challenged by inherent limitations such as small sample sizes, high design heterogeneity, and poor reproducibility, which impede the effective translation of research findings into clinical practice. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis represent a key methodology for integrating existing evidence and enhancing the robustness of conclusions. Currently, however, the application of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the field of animal experiments lacks standardized guidelines for their conduct and reporting, resulting in inconsistent quality and, to some extent, diminishing their evidence value. To address this issue, this paper aims to systematically delineate the reporting process for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of animal experiments and to propose a set of standardized recommendations that are both scientific and practical. The article's scope encompasses the entire process, from the preliminary preparatory phase [including formulating the population， intervention， comparison and outcome （PICO） question, assessing feasibility, and protocol pre-registration] to the key writing points for each section of the main report. In the core methods section, the paper elaborates on how to implement literature searches, establish eligibility criteria, perform data extraction, and assess the risk of bias, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis （PRISMA) statement, in conjunction with relevant guidelines and tools such as Animal Research： Reporting of in Vivo Experiments （ARRIVE) and a risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE). For the presentation of results, strategies are proposed for clear and transparent display using flow diagrams and tables of characteristics. The discussion section places particular emphasis on how to scientifically interpret pooled effects, thoroughly analyze sources of heterogeneity, evaluate the impact of publication bias, and cautiously discuss the validity and limitations of extrapolating findings from animal studies to clinical settings. Furthermore, this paper recommends adopting the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to comprehensively grade the quality of evidence. Through a modular analysis of the entire reporting process, this paper aims to provide researchers in the field with a clear and practical guide, thereby promoting the standardized development of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of animal experiments and enhancing their application value in scientific decision-making and translational medicine.