ObjectiveTo elucidate the critical role of rehabilitation medical records (including electronic records) in rehabilitation medicine's clinical practice and management, comprehensively analyzed the structure, core content and data standards of rehabilitation medical records, to develop a standardized medical record data architecture and core dataset suitable for rehabilitation medicine and to explore the application of rehabilitation data in performance evaluation and payment. MethodsBased on the regulatory documents Basic Specifications for Medical Record Writing and Basic Specifications for Electronic Medical Records (Trial) issued by National Health Commission of China, and referencing the World Health Organization (WHO) Family of International Classifications (WHO-FICs) classifications, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10/ICD-11), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI Beta-3), this study constructed the data architecture, core content and data standards for rehabilitation medical records. Furthermore, it explored the application of rehabilitation record summary sheets (home page) data in rehabilitation medical statistics and payment methods, including Diagnosis-related Groups (DRG), Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP) and Case Mix Index. ResultsThis study proposed a systematic standard framework for rehabilitation medical records, covering key components such as patient demographics, rehabilitation diagnosis, functional assessment, rehabilitation treatment prescriptions, progress evaluations and discharge summaries. The research analyzed the systematic application methods and data standards of ICD-10/ICD-11, ICF and ICHI Beta-3 in the fields of medical record terminology, coding and assessment. Constructing a standardized data structure and data standards for rehabilitation medical records can significantly improve the quality of data reporting based on the medical record summary sheet, thereby enhancing the quality control of rehabilitation services, effectively supporting the optimization of rehabilitation medical insurance payment mechanisms, and contributing to the establishment of rehabilitation medical performance evaluation and payment based on DRG and DIP. ConclusionStructured rehabilitation records and data standardization are crucial tools for quality control in rehabilitation. Systematically applying the three reference classifications of the WHO-FICs, and aligning with national medical record and electronic health record specifications, facilitate the development of a standardized rehabilitation record architecture and core dataset. Standardizing rehabilitation care pathways based on the ICF methodology, and developing ICF- and ICD-11-based rehabilitation assessment tools, auxiliary diagnostic and therapeutic systems, and supporting terminology and coding systems, can effectively enhance the quality of rehabilitation records and enable interoperability and sharing of rehabilitation data with other medical data, ultimately improving the quality and safety of rehabilitation services.

The 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology(ASCO)Annual Meeting was held in Chicago,the United States,from May 31 to June 4 in 2024.In recent years,antibody-drug conjugates(ADCs)have become one of the most popular targeted therapies because of their high specificity,efficacy,and low toxicity,making them a focal point in this ASCO meeting.Currently,over 100 ADCs are under investigation,demonstrating the considerable development potential of ADCs in the field of targeted cancer therapy.The aforementioned conference reported several recent research advancements regarding ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer(BC).This review summarizes the latest progress of ADCs in BC treatment discussed at the confer-ence.

Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of monthly administrations of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists LY01005 and Zoladex ? in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer. Methods:From October 2020 to November 2021, 188 premenopausal breast cancer patients were enrolled in 34 hospitals and randomized 1:1 to receive either LY01005 or Zoladex ? every 28 days for a total of three injections. All patients concomitantly received oral tamoxifen (TAM). The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative probability of maintaining menopausal level [oestradiol (E2) ≤30 pg/ml] from day 29 to day 85. The second efficacy endpoint included changes in E2, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) compared with the baseline. Pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety were analyzed. The study also evaluated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of LY01005. Results:A total of 188 patients were randomised and 187 patients received either LY01005 or Zoladex ?. Cumulative probabilities of maintaining menopausal level (E2≤30 pg/ml) from day 29 to day 85 were 93.1% for LY01005 and 86.3% for Zoladex ?. The between-group difference was 6.8% (95% CI: -2.3%, 15.9%) and primary efficacy in the LY01005 group was not inferior to that in the Zoladex ? group. Changes in E2, LH, and FSH levels compared with the baseline were equivalent between the two groups (E2: 89.34% to 90.23% vs. 82.11% to 85.02%; LH: 88.89% to 95.52% vs. 89.70% to 97.02%; FSH: 75.36% to 80.85% vs.73.07% to 80.24%, respectively). After three consecutive doses of LY01005, the LH and FSH levels of the subjects showed a transient increase after the first dose, reached a peak on the second day and then started to decrease. The LH and FSH reached a lower level and remained at or below that level until the 85th day. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusion:LY01005 is as effective as Zoladex ? in suppressing E2 to menopausal levels in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer, with a similar safety profile.

Objective:To investigate the interaction of risk factors for diabetic retinopathy (DR) occurrence.Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed.A total of 6 783 diabetic patients with complete survey data from 2005 to 2018 in the National Health and Nutrition Survey database were enrolled, among which 4 426 patients were included according to inclusion criteria and were divided into non-DR diabetes group of 3 491 cases and DR group of 935 cases.The related risk factors were collected, including age, gender, race, residential status, education, annual household income, body mass index (BMI), fasting glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, duration of diabetes, family history of diabetes, comorbidities, smoke, alcohol use, sleep, physical activity.Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to assess the psychological status.After the categorization of all variables, risk factors of DR were analyzed by logistic regression, and the interaction between factors was further analyzed.Results:Multivariate analysis showed that female[odds ratio ( OR)=1.33, 95% confidence interval ( CI): 1.02-1.72], duration of diabetes ≥10 years ( OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04), insulin therapy ( OR=2.38, 95% CI: 1.87-3.05), urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥30 mg/g ( OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.22-1.96) and depression ( OR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.13-1.83) were risk factors for DR, and BMI≤28 kg/m 2 ( OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89) was a protective factor for DR.Furthermore, interaction analysis revealed additive interaction between UACR ≥30 mg/g and insulin therapy [relative excess risk due to interaction ( RERI)=2.46, 95% CI: 0.84-4.09, attributable proportion due to interaction ( AP)=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.63, synergy index ( S)=2.16, 95% CI: 1.37-3.41).The UACR ≥30 mg/g and longer diabetic duration ≥10 years had both multiplicative ( OR=1.67, 95% CI: 1.00-2.76) and additive interactions ( RERI=2.02, 95% CI: 0.79-3.25, AP=0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.66, S=2.53, 95% CI: 1.37-4.68). Conclusions:Patients with diabetes treated with insulin, with a duration of diabetes ≥10 years and accompanied by UACR ≥30 mg/g are at higher risk of developing DR than those with a single risk factor.

Objective:To investigate the interaction of risk factors for diabetic retinopathy (DR) occurrence.Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed.A total of 6 783 diabetic patients with complete survey data from 2005 to 2018 in the National Health and Nutrition Survey database were enrolled, among which 4 426 patients were included according to inclusion criteria and were divided into non-DR diabetes group of 3 491 cases and DR group of 935 cases.The related risk factors were collected, including age, gender, race, residential status, education, annual household income, body mass index (BMI), fasting glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, duration of diabetes, family history of diabetes, comorbidities, smoke, alcohol use, sleep, physical activity.Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to assess the psychological status.After the categorization of all variables, risk factors of DR were analyzed by logistic regression, and the interaction between factors was further analyzed.Results:Multivariate analysis showed that female[odds ratio ( OR)=1.33, 95% confidence interval ( CI): 1.02-1.72], duration of diabetes ≥10 years ( OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04), insulin therapy ( OR=2.38, 95% CI: 1.87-3.05), urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥30 mg/g ( OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.22-1.96) and depression ( OR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.13-1.83) were risk factors for DR, and BMI≤28 kg/m 2 ( OR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89) was a protective factor for DR.Furthermore, interaction analysis revealed additive interaction between UACR ≥30 mg/g and insulin therapy [relative excess risk due to interaction ( RERI)=2.46, 95% CI: 0.84-4.09, attributable proportion due to interaction ( AP)=0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.63, synergy index ( S)=2.16, 95% CI: 1.37-3.41).The UACR ≥30 mg/g and longer diabetic duration ≥10 years had both multiplicative ( OR=1.67, 95% CI: 1.00-2.76) and additive interactions ( RERI=2.02, 95% CI: 0.79-3.25, AP=0.47, 95% CI: 0.27-0.66, S=2.53, 95% CI: 1.37-4.68). Conclusions:Patients with diabetes treated with insulin, with a duration of diabetes ≥10 years and accompanied by UACR ≥30 mg/g are at higher risk of developing DR than those with a single risk factor.

The 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology(ASCO)Annual Meeting was held in Chicago,the United States,from May 31 to June 4 in 2024.In recent years,antibody-drug conjugates(ADCs)have become one of the most popular targeted therapies because of their high specificity,efficacy,and low toxicity,making them a focal point in this ASCO meeting.Currently,over 100 ADCs are under investigation,demonstrating the considerable development potential of ADCs in the field of targeted cancer therapy.The aforementioned conference reported several recent research advancements regarding ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer(BC).This review summarizes the latest progress of ADCs in BC treatment discussed at the confer-ence.

Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of monthly administrations of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists LY01005 and Zoladex ? in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer. Methods:From October 2020 to November 2021, 188 premenopausal breast cancer patients were enrolled in 34 hospitals and randomized 1:1 to receive either LY01005 or Zoladex ? every 28 days for a total of three injections. All patients concomitantly received oral tamoxifen (TAM). The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative probability of maintaining menopausal level [oestradiol (E2) ≤30 pg/ml] from day 29 to day 85. The second efficacy endpoint included changes in E2, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) compared with the baseline. Pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety were analyzed. The study also evaluated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of LY01005. Results:A total of 188 patients were randomised and 187 patients received either LY01005 or Zoladex ?. Cumulative probabilities of maintaining menopausal level (E2≤30 pg/ml) from day 29 to day 85 were 93.1% for LY01005 and 86.3% for Zoladex ?. The between-group difference was 6.8% (95% CI: -2.3%, 15.9%) and primary efficacy in the LY01005 group was not inferior to that in the Zoladex ? group. Changes in E2, LH, and FSH levels compared with the baseline were equivalent between the two groups (E2: 89.34% to 90.23% vs. 82.11% to 85.02%; LH: 88.89% to 95.52% vs. 89.70% to 97.02%; FSH: 75.36% to 80.85% vs.73.07% to 80.24%, respectively). After three consecutive doses of LY01005, the LH and FSH levels of the subjects showed a transient increase after the first dose, reached a peak on the second day and then started to decrease. The LH and FSH reached a lower level and remained at or below that level until the 85th day. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusion:LY01005 is as effective as Zoladex ? in suppressing E2 to menopausal levels in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer, with a similar safety profile.

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.

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.