Polycystic ovary syndrome （PCOS） is a common gynecological endocrine and reproductive disorder，with the main clinical manifestations including ovulation failure，insulin resistance，hyperandrogenism，and obesity. Its occurrence and development are closely related to cellular regulatory mechanisms such as apoptosis，autophagy，oxidative stress，and inflammatory response. Autophagy，as a clearance mechanism that maintains cellular homeostasis，plays a crucial role in maintaining the growth，development，and maturation of oocytes. Exploring the mechanism of autophagy during the occurrence and development of diseases can help develop treatment methods for PCOS by regulating autophagy. Studies have shown that autophagy plays an important role in the pathogenesis of PCOS，and it can affect the occurrence and development of PCOS through multiple pathways，levels，and targets. Traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） regulates autophagy in ovarian granulosa cells or endometrium of patients with PCOS by targeting the expression of autophagy signaling pathways，regulatory factors，and non-coding single-stranded RNA molecules，thereby alleviating inflammation，regulating metabolism disorders，and balancing hormone levels in PCOS. Accordingly，TCM can ameliorate pathological conditions such as insulin resistance，hyperandrogenism，and ovulation failure in PCOS. This article summarizes the TCM formulas and extracts for the treatment of PCOS，as well as the main autophagy pathways and regulatory factors involved，aiming to provide reference and suggestions for the future treatment of PCOS with TCM by regulating autophagy.

AIM: To analyze the changes in binocular visual function before and after small incision lenticule extraction(SMILE)in patients with different degrees of myopia.METHODS:A prospective non-randomized controlled study was conducted. A total of 94 patients(188 eyes)who visited the refractive outpatient department of the ophthalmology department of the General Hospital of the PLA from June 2022 to June 2023 and voluntarily chose SMILE were consecutively included. They were grouped according to the degree of myopia, including 24 cases(48 eyes)in the low myopia group(-3.00 D

OBJECTIVE To analyze the correlation of the peak blood concentration （cmax） of compound sulfamethoxazole （TMP/SMZ） and its metabolite N-acetyl sulfamethoxazole （NSMZ） with clinical efficacy and adverse reactions in critically ill patients. METHODS The data of critically ill patients treated with TMP/SMZ in various ICU of Hainan General Hospital from December 2023 to January 2025 were retrospectively collected. The patients were divided into success group and failure group based on the treatment outcome. Simple linear regression and Spearman correlation analysis were used to analyze the correlation of TMP cmax， SMZ cmax， and NSMZ cmax with clinical efficacy and adverse reactions. The receiver operating characteristic curve （ROC） was used to determine the cutoff values of cmax for predicting the occurrence of adverse reactions. RESULTS Among critically ill patients with an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ （APACHE-Ⅱ） ≥15 points 24 h of check-in at ICU， SMZ cmax of success group was significantly higher than failure group （P＜0.05）. The daily total dose of TMP/SMZ was positively correlated with TMP cmax and SMZ cmax（ P＜0.05）. TMP cmax was significantly correlated with hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity， SMZ cmax with hepatotoxicity， and NSMZ cmax with nephrotoxicity （P＜0.05）. The cutoff values of TMP cmax for predicting nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity were 7.25 μg/mL and 6.63 μg/mL， respectively. The cutoff value of SMZ cmax for predicting hepatotoxicity was 138.00 μg/mL， and that of NSMZ cmax for predicting nephrotoxicity was 60.76 μg/mL. CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill patients with an APACHE-Ⅱ ≥15 points 24 h of check-in at ICU， SMZ cmax is associated with treatment success. Hepatotoxicity risk significantly increases when TMP cmax ≥6.63 μg/mL or SMZ cmax ≥138.00 μg/mL； nephrotoxicity risk significantly increases when TMP cmax ≥7.25 μg/mL or NSMZ cmax ≥60.76 μg/mL.

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.

Objective To investigate the clinical application of three-dimensional intracavitary/free-hand interstitial brachytherapy technique in radical radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on the clinical data of patients with cervical cancer who underwent radical radiotherapy using CT-guided three-dimensional intracavitary/free-hand interstitial brachytherapy technique in The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from April 2019 to September 2021. The short-term efficacy and adverse reactions were analyzed, and the independent predictors affecting short-term efficacy were evaluated by logistic risk regression model. Results A total of 182 patients were included, and all patients successfully completed the treatment. Clinical efficacy assessment performed 3 months after treatment revealed an overall response rate of 90.65%; the incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse reactions in the lower gastrointestinal tract was 4.4% during treatment. After reclassifying stage IIIC patients according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 staging system and including factors affecting the stage, it was found that the tumor volume before brachytherapy was the main factor affecting the clinical efficacy of patients at this stage (P = 0.004). Conclusion As a key method in radical radiotherapy for cervical cancer, three-dimensional intracavitary/free-hand interstitial brachytherapy technique is safe and effective and can be quickly popularized in primary hospitals beyond regional cancer centers for cervical cancer brachytherapy.

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.