Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare neurodegenerative disease with complex clinical manifestations, presenting substantial challenges in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Its symptoms and the eight extraordinary meridians are potentially correlated; therefore, this article explores the association between MSA symptom clusters and the eight extraordinary meridians based on their circulation and physiological functions, as well as their treatment strategies. The progression from deficiency to damage in the eight extraordinary meridians aligns with the core pathogenesis of MSA, which is characterized by "the continuous accumulation of impacts from the vital qi deficiency leading to eventual damage". Liver and kidney deficiency and the emptiness of the eight extraordinary meridians are required for the onset of MSA; the stagnation of qi deficiency and the gradual damage to the eight extraordinary meridians are the key stages in the prolonged progression of MSA. The disease often begins with the involvement of the yin and yang qiao mai, governor vessel, thoroughfare vessel, and conception vessel before progressing to multiple meridian involvements, ultimately affecting all eight extraordinary meridians simultaneously. The treatment approach emphasizes that "the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect method will be needed in order to secure victory" and focuses on "eliminate pathogenic factors and reinforce healthy qi". Distinguishing the extraordinary meridians and focusing on the primary symptoms are pivotal to improving efficacy. Clinical treatment is aimed at the target, and tailored treatment based on careful clinical observation ensures precision in targeting the disease using the eight extraordinary meridians as the framework and core symptoms as the specific focus. Additionally, combining acupuncture, daoyin therapy, and other method may help prolong survival. This article classifies clinical manifestations based on the theory of the eight extraordinary meridians and explores treatment.

Objective To investigate the factors influencing shorter survival in standard-risk multiple myeloma(MM)patients as defined by the mSMART3.0 criteria,and to provide a basis for constructing a more precise risk prediction model for MM patients.Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 388 MM patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between January 2015 and January 2022.Clinical baseline data,laboratory test results,and overall survival(OS)data were collected.SPSS 27.0 software was used for the analysis of relevant factors,with a P-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant.Results Analysis of the 82 mSMART 3.0 standard-risk MM patients revealed that age(P＜0.01)and monocyte percentage(P=0.025)differed significantly between the groups with differing survival outcomes.Further COX regression analysis indicated that advanced age(HR=1.057,95％CI:1.022-1.093,P=0.01)and a high monocyte percentage(HR=1.115,95％CI:1.041-1.193,P=0.02)were independent risk factors influencing the OS of standard-risk MM patients.Conclusion Both age and monocyte percentage are independent adverse factors affecting the survival of standard-risk MM patients ac-cording to the mSMART 3.0 staging system.Incorporating these factors into the stratification criteria is ex-pected to enhance the accuracy of risk stratification.

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.

To provide in-service medical technicians and nurses with convenient access to continuing education resources in transfusion medicine, reduce transfusion-related adverse events, and ensure the safety, rationalization, and effectiveness of clinical transfusion, we designed and developed an online transfusion continuing education platform. The platform was based on the new managed code programming model.NET Core and the powerful functions of hypertext preprocessor PHP 7.4, addressing current issues in transfusion online continuing education. Through in-depth analysis of student attributes, learning behaviors, and teaching behaviors, a comprehensive online continuous teaching quality evaluation index system was established. This system not only facilitates the quantitative assessment of teaching quality but also successfully integrates the two core functions of teaching and management, thereby achieving unified online teaching.

To provide in-service medical technicians and nurses with convenient access to continuing education resources in transfusion medicine, reduce transfusion-related adverse events, and ensure the safety, rationalization, and effectiveness of clinical transfusion, we designed and developed an online transfusion continuing education platform. The platform was based on the new managed code programming model.NET Core and the powerful functions of hypertext preprocessor PHP 7.4, addressing current issues in transfusion online continuing education. Through in-depth analysis of student attributes, learning behaviors, and teaching behaviors, a comprehensive online continuous teaching quality evaluation index system was established. This system not only facilitates the quantitative assessment of teaching quality but also successfully integrates the two core functions of teaching and management, thereby achieving unified online teaching.

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.