BackgroundSleep disorder in the first trimester is a fairly common health problem， and previous studies have mainly reflected the overall sleep quality through scale assessments， which may not accurately capture the differences among various subtypes. ObjectiveTo explore the latent profiles of sleep quality in first-trimester pregnant women and identify the physiological， psychological and social factors， in order to provide practical references for the development of personalized interventions for sleep disorders in first-trimester pregnant women. MethodsA total of 1 066 first-trimester pregnant women who visited the obstetric outpatient clinic of a tertiary A hospital in Shenzhen from October 2021 to October 2022 were investigated using the general information questionnaire， Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index （PSQI）， Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale （EPDS）， Chinese version of short International Physical Activity Questionnaire （IPAQ-S-C） and Social Capital Assessment Tool in Pregnancy for Maternal Health （SCAT-MH）. Then the sleep profiles were identified through latent profile analysis， and the robust mixture regression model was employed to determine the influencing factors of sleep profiles. ResultsA 3-profile solution showed the best fit： 732 cases （68.67%） of good sleep quality group， 87 cases （8.16%） of low sleep efficiency group， and 247 cases （23.17%） of daytime dysfunction group. In comparison with subjects in good sleep quality group， first-trimester pregnant women in low sleep efficiency group were at a younger age （OR=0.951， 95% CI： 0.922~0.980）， held a Bachelor's degree or above （OR=1.869， 95% CI： 1.260~2.773） and exhibited lower levels of social capital （OR=0.962， 95% CI： 0.951~0.973）， while those in daytime dysfunction group were at an older age （OR=1.072， 95% CI： 1.027~1.120） and had higher levels of depression （OR=1.166， 95% CI： 1.115~1.218）. Pregnant women who were workers （OR=0.507， 95% CI： 0.293~0.876） were less likely to report daytime dysfunction. ConclusionThree latent profiles with significant heterogeneity are derived from the sleep quality of first-trimester pregnant women， and levels of depression and social capital are the main influencing factors of sleep quality. ［Funded by Industry-University-Research Innovation Fund for Chinese Universities （number， 2023HT018）］

AIM: To understand the current status and differences in visual acuity of children of the same age from different regions of Xi'an, and to take an effective basis for the prevention of children's myopia.METHODS: Random stratified sampling was used to select the uncorrected distance visual acuity and computed dioptric data of 41 285 children aged 6-12 from 6 towns, 10 urban and rural areas and 112 country schools screened by Xi'an Central Hospital in December 2022.RESULTS: The myopia detection rate in different regions of Xi'an is 47.16% in towns, 38.59% in urban and rural areas, and 32.29% in the country, and the total myopia rate is 37.50%. The myopia rate of 6-12 years old in towns is higher than that in urban and rural areas, and that of urban and rural areas is higher than that of country; the myopia rate of girls is higher than that of boys; myopia rate increases with age; mild myopia: the myopia rate in towns is significantly higher than that of the urban and rural areas and the country; high myopia: the myopia rate in the country is significantly higher than that of the towns and the urban and rural areas. The total rate of deficient hyperopia reserves in different regions of Xi'an is 92.08% in towns, 93.67% in urban and rural areas, and 90.92% in the country, and the total rate of deficient hyperopia reserves is 92.09%. The rate of deficient hyperopia reserves at the age of 6-12 is higher in the urban and rural areas than in the towns, and higher in the towns than in the country; the total rate of deficient hyperopia reserve is higher in girls than in boys; it is the peak period of the development of hyperopia reserve rate before the age of 8.CONCLUSION: The total myopia rate and the total vision reserve deficiency rate of 6-12 years old in different regions of Xi'an are different, and 8-9 years old is the accelerated period of myopia development, and the peak of deficient hyperopia reserve is before the age of 8 years old. With the growth of age, the myopia rate shows a certain growth trend, and the rate of deficient hyperopia reserve shows a decreasing trend after reaching the peak. The total myopia rate and insufficient acuity reserve rate of girls are higher than those of boys.

Objective To analyze the structural changes and reasons for hospitalization expenditure among patients with thyroid cancer,so as to provide a reference basis for reasonable control of medical costs,making the structure of hospitalisation costs for patients undergoing surgery for thyroid cancer more rational.Methods The degree of structural change and the grey correlation method were used to quantitatively analyze the changes in the structure of hospitalization expenses and the degree of correlation of patients with thyroid cancer surgery in a hospital in Shanxi Province from 2017 to 2022.Results From 2017 to 2022,the hospitalization expenses of thyroid cancer surgery patients in the hospital showed a decreasing trend,and drug fees and consumables fees accounted for a large proportion.Consumables fees and treatment fees showed positive contribution changes,drug fees and diagnosis fees showed negative contribution changes.Nursing fees and general medical service fees showed positive contribution changes,but were not obvious.During the 6-year period,the top two related factors affecting the hospitalization expenses of thyroid cancer patients were drug fees and consumables fees.Conclusion The structure of hospitalization expenses of per thyroid cancer patients tends to be reasonable,but there is still a large room for improvement.It is suggested to continue to strengthen the control of drugs and medical consumables,and clarify the value composition of technical labor and material consumables,so as to further optimize the structure of hospitalization expenses.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.