AIM: To investigate the relationship between Apelin and δ-like ligand 4(DLL4)expression levels and clinical stage and efficacy in patients with neovascular glaucoma(NVG).METHODS: A total of 96 NVG patients(96 eyes)who were admitted to our hospital from January 2022 to March 2024(NVG group)and 96 cataract patients(96 eyes)who underwent cataract surgery in our hospital during the same period(control group)were selected. NVG patients were divided into stage Ⅰ group(22 eyes), stage Ⅱ group(47 eyes)and stage Ⅲ group(27 eyes)according to the clinical stage; furthermore, patients were divided into ineffective group(20 eyes)and effective group(76 eyes)according to efficacy. Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The influencing factors of the efficacy in NVG patients were analyzed by multivariate unconditional Logistic regression analysis, the evaluation efficiency of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels on the efficacy in NVG patients was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve.RESULTS: Compared with the control group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the NVG group were increased(all P<0.001). Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ and stage Ⅲ groups increased in turn(all P<0.001). The effective rate of 96 NVG patients was 79.2%(76/96). Compared with the effective group, aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in the ineffective group increased(all P<0.001). Clinical stage III, high intraocular pressure, high Apelin and DLL4 were independent risk factors for ineffective treatment in NVG patients(all P<0.05). The area under the curve of the combined evaluation of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients was 0.874, which was greater than 0.790 and 0.786 of aqueous Apelin and DLL4 levels alone(all P<0.05).CONCLUSION: Aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels in NVG patients increase, which relate to the increase of clinical stage and poor efficacy, and the combination of aqueous humor Apelin and DLL4 levels is more effective in evaluating the efficacy of NVG patients.

Objective To investigate the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori(H.pylori)positivity in the urban areas of Chongqing and its relationship with age,season,and gender.Methods A total of 4,836 patients who underwent 14C-UBT testing at our hospital from April 2023 to March 2024 were selected.The detection rate of H.pylori and the infection status of H.pylori in different age groups,genders,and seasons were analyzed.Logistic regression analysis was performed on factors related to H.pylori infection identified in the univariate analysis.Results The positive detection rate of H.pylori in the 4,836 subjects was 29.3％,with a higher rate in males than in females,showing a statistically significant difference(P＜0.05).The highest positive detection rate of H.pylori was in the summer season,and the peak positivity rate for H.pylori was observed in the 30-39 age group.There was a statistically significant difference in the positive detection rate of H.pylori across seasons and among different age groups(P＜0.05).Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that gender,age,and season were all influential factors in the outcome of H.pylori infection(P＜0.05).Conclusion The prevalence of H.pylori infection in the urban areas of Chongqing is relatively low,and gender,age,and season are all influential factors for H.pylori infection.

ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility and rationality of applying relevant diagnostic and treatment programmes from textbooks as evidence in traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） diagnosis and treatment guidelines， using allergic rhinitis as an example. MethodsTextbooks published from October 1949 to December 2022， as well as TCM diagnosis and treatment guidelines published until December 2022 on allergic rhinitis were searched， and the contents of diagnosis and treatment related to allergic rhinitis were extracted. The similarities and differences between textbooks in different periods， between textbooks in different versions， and between textbooks and guidelines were compared and analyzed. ResultsA total of 12 national planning textbooks on TCM otolaryngology and 4 Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment guidelines on allergic rhinitis from 1975 to 2021 were included. The evolution of diagnostic and treatment programmes was shown by the textbooks in different periods. Since 2003， syndrome of latent heat in lung channel has been added in the published textbook， and TCM featured therapies， such as nasal packing， intranasal spray were enriched， as well as the contents related to prevention and prognosis. The main syndromes included lung qi deficiency and cold， spleen qi deficiency， kidney yang deficiency， and latent heat in lung meridian. The most common recommended prescriptions were Wenfei Zhiliu Pill （温肺止流丹）， Yupingfeng Powder （玉屏风散） and Cangerzi Powder （苍耳子散）； Buzhong Yiqi Decoction （补中益气汤）， Shenling Baizhu Powder （参苓白术散）； Shenqi Pill （肾气丸） or Zhenwu Decoction （真武汤）； Xinyi Qingfei Decoction （辛夷清肺饮）. A comparison of different versions of textbooks showed that the classification of syndromes was consistent， while the formulas were slightly different. The comparison between different versions of the current textbooks and the guidelines showed that the recommended prescriptions of the textbooks had more Cangerzi Powder， Xiaoqinglong Decoction （小青龙汤）， Zhenwu Decoction， etc.， while TCM featured therapies such as nose blowing， smelling， nasal plugging， nasal washing were enriched， and information on formula modification， prevention and adjustment， prognosis were also added， which can supplement the corresponding evidence for the guidelines. ConclusionTextbooks could serve as a strong supplement for the evidence-based development of TCM clinical guidelines. However， there is still a need for further research on the quality assessment system of textbook evidence to improve the credibility of its applicability of the guidelines evidence.

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.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.

Objective:To explore the application value of a novel separated magnetic-controlled forceps in transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC).Methods:This is a prospective case series study. Data from patients who underwent SILC at the Department of General Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University from March to August 2023 were prospectively collected, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All patients underwent cholecystectomy assisted by a novel separated magnetic-controlled forceps. Surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, the need for additional incisions during surgery, and the length of hospital stay were recorded to assess surgical difficulty and effectiveness. Postoperative pain scores and complications were documented to evaluate the safety of the procedure. The collaboration experience of the surgeon and assistant was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale to assess the feasibility of this surgical approach. Informed consent was obtained from all patients in accordance with medical ethical regulations. Patients were followed up through outpatient visits or telephone calls, with follow-up at 7 days and 1 month after surgery, and evaluation of incisional scar healing and completion of satisfaction questionnaires. Follow-up was conducted until September 30, 2023.Results:A total of 45 patients were included in the study,including 19 males and 26 females,aged (42.7±4.2)years(range:32 to 61 years). The difficulty of the operation was evaluated as grade 1 or 2 in 38 cases(84.4%) and grade 3 in 7 cases(15.6%). Operation time was (37.3±5.3) minutes(range: 25 to 80 minutes),and intraoperative blood loss( M(IQR)) was 17.8(35.0) ml (range:10 to 60 ml). All surgical procedures proceeded smoothly without intraoperative incidents, and the overall satisfaction of the surgeon and assistants was high. All patients underwent successful day surgery management and were discharged within 48 hours of hospitalization. The postoperative pain scores at 1, 7, and 30 days were 3 (4), 1 (3), and 0 (2), respectively. The follow-up time was 5.0(2.2) weeks (range: 3 to 7 weeks), with no occurrence of grade 3 to 4 adverse reactions, and the patients were satisfied with the cosmetic effect of the umbilical incision. Conclusions:The novel separated magnetic-controlled forceps can be applied in transumbilical SILC. It has the advantages of convenient operation, and patients are satisfied with the surgical results.