首页 > 最新文献

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews最新文献

英文 中文
Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. 替奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性脑卒中。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-29 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016325
Hemanshu Prabhakar, Indu Kapoor, Charu Mahajan, Chandini Kukanti, Mani Kalaivani

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To assess the benefits and harms of tenecteplase compared to alteplase in people suffering from large vessel occlusion or non-large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke. Secondary objective To explore the effects of the interventions (tenecteplase and alteplase) in different groups based on age, sex, ethnicity, and place of residence (high-, middle-, low-income country), to inform health equity considerations.

目的:这是Cochrane综述(干预)的一个方案。主要目的比较替替普酶与阿替普酶在大血管闭塞或非大血管闭塞急性缺血性卒中患者中的利弊。次要目的:根据年龄、性别、种族和居住地(高、中、低收入国家),探讨干预措施(替奈普酶和阿替普酶)在不同人群中的效果,为卫生公平考虑提供信息。
{"title":"Tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.","authors":"Hemanshu Prabhakar, Indu Kapoor, Charu Mahajan, Chandini Kukanti, Mani Kalaivani","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016325","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016325","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To assess the benefits and harms of tenecteplase compared to alteplase in people suffering from large vessel occlusion or non-large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke. Secondary objective To explore the effects of the interventions (tenecteplase and alteplase) in different groups based on age, sex, ethnicity, and place of residence (high-, middle-, low-income country), to inform health equity considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD016325"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12853415/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146084525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Diagnostic tests for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preschool children. 学龄前儿童自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的诊断测试。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-29 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016321
Amanda Brignell, Kris Chan, Tayla Chellew, Chathuri Vihanga Maddumahewa, Nicole Wong, Lotty Hooft, Mohammed Alshawsh, Katrina Williams

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows: Primary objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of widely used ASD diagnostic tools (specifically CARS, GARS, ADOS, ADI-R, DISCO, 3di) in preschool children, compared with multidisciplinary team clinical judgement. We aim to: summarise sensitivity, specificity, and other accuracy measures for each ASD diagnostic tool; and for studies that compare two or more tools within the same study, describe and compare their diagnostic accuracy. To identify if any combination of diagnostic tools has greater diagnostic test accuracy than each single tool. We aim to: describe combined diagnostic test accuracy within a single study; and compare combined diagnostic test accuracy to individual test accuracy from primary objective 1a. Secondary objectives To assess whether there is different diagnostic test accuracy for subgroups such as intellectual disability, language level, setting, prospective versus retrospective, DSM diagnostic classification and specific ages (within the preschool age range).

目的:这是Cochrane综述(诊断)的一份方案。主要目的评价目前广泛应用的ASD诊断工具(特别是CARS、GARS、ADOS、ADI-R、DISCO、3di)对学龄前儿童的诊断准确性,并与多学科团队临床判断进行比较。我们的目标是:总结每种ASD诊断工具的敏感性、特异性和其他准确性指标;对于在同一项研究中比较两个或更多工具的研究,描述并比较它们的诊断准确性。确定诊断工具的任何组合是否比单个工具具有更高的诊断测试准确性。我们的目标是:在一项研究中描述综合诊断测试的准确性;并从主要目标1a比较组合诊断测试的准确性和单独测试的准确性。次要目的评估在智力残疾、语言水平、环境、前瞻性与回顾性、DSM诊断分类和特定年龄(学龄前范围内)等亚组中是否存在不同的诊断测试准确性。
{"title":"Diagnostic tests for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in preschool children.","authors":"Amanda Brignell, Kris Chan, Tayla Chellew, Chathuri Vihanga Maddumahewa, Nicole Wong, Lotty Hooft, Mohammed Alshawsh, Katrina Williams","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016321","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016321","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows: Primary objectives To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of widely used ASD diagnostic tools (specifically CARS, GARS, ADOS, ADI-R, DISCO, 3di) in preschool children, compared with multidisciplinary team clinical judgement. We aim to: summarise sensitivity, specificity, and other accuracy measures for each ASD diagnostic tool; and for studies that compare two or more tools within the same study, describe and compare their diagnostic accuracy. To identify if any combination of diagnostic tools has greater diagnostic test accuracy than each single tool. We aim to: describe combined diagnostic test accuracy within a single study; and compare combined diagnostic test accuracy to individual test accuracy from primary objective 1a. Secondary objectives To assess whether there is different diagnostic test accuracy for subgroups such as intellectual disability, language level, setting, prospective versus retrospective, DSM diagnostic classification and specific ages (within the preschool age range).</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD016321"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12853414/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146084511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Enteral lipid supplements for the prevention and treatment of parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease in infants. 肠内脂质补充预防和治疗婴儿肠外营养相关性肝病
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-29 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014353.pub2
Muralidhar H Premkumar, Katie A Huff, Chris Cooper, Jane Cracknell, Mohan Pammi
<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Enteral lipid formulations may offer benefits according to preclinical studies, but their effectiveness and safety in preventing and treating parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD) in infants remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the benefits and harms of enteral lipid supplementation for the prevention and treatment of PNALD in infants.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors. The latest search was in December 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included parallel, randomized control trials (RCTs) in infants comparing enteral lipid supplements with either a placebo or no intervention in infants who were either at risk or who had PNALD. We excluded studies involving infants receiving enteral feeds without the need for parenteral nutrition, as they were neither at risk for PNALD, nor diagnosed with PNALD, and infants with cholestasis secondary to primary liver disease, inborn errors of metabolism, or congenital infection.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our primary outcomes were the prevention of PNALD during hospital stay and the first year of life; and resolution of PNALD during hospital stay and the first year of life. Other outcomes included feeding intolerance during the hospital stay, time to full feeds measured in days during the hospital stay, length of hospital stay in days, need for liver transplantation in the first year of life and all-cause mortality up to hospital discharge and in the first year of life.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 (RoB 1) tool to assess bias in the RCTs.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analyses where possible, using random-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MDs). If combining the data was not feasible, we summarized data narratively using Synthesis without Metaanalysis (SWiM). We summarized the certainty of evidence according to GRADE methods.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 11 studies (2192 infants). A variety of enteral lipids were used as interventions, including algal oil, fungal oil, and fish oil, either alone or in combination. The intervention groups received: - Fish oil alone or in combination with other oils (three studies; n = 1328); - Algal oil alone or in combination with other oils (eight studies; n = 864). The comparison groups received either no intervention or other oils, such as sunflower oil, safflower oil, olive oil, or medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil. Most studies included preterm infants who received enteral lipid supplements while primarily on parenteral nutrition and minimal enteral nutrition, thus being co
理由:根据临床前研究,肠内脂质制剂可能有益处,但其在预防和治疗婴儿肠外营养相关性肝病(PNALD)方面的有效性和安全性尚不清楚。目的:评价肠内脂质补充预防和治疗婴儿PNALD的利与弊。检索方法:检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase和试验注册库,查阅文献并联系研究作者。最近一次搜索是在2024年12月。入选标准:我们纳入了平行、随机对照试验(rct),对有风险或患有PNALD的婴儿进行肠内脂质补充剂与安慰剂或无干预的比较。我们排除了涉及接受肠内喂养而不需要肠外营养的婴儿的研究,因为他们既没有PNALD的风险,也没有被诊断为PNALD,以及伴有原发性肝病、先天性代谢错误或先天性感染的胆汁淤积的婴儿。结果:我们的主要结果是住院期间和出生后第一年PNALD的预防;住院期间和出生后第一年PNALD的消退。其他结果包括住院期间的喂养不耐受,住院期间以天为单位测量的完全喂养时间,住院天数,生命第一年的肝移植需求以及出院前和生命第一年的全因死亡率。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险1 (RoB 1)工具评估随机对照试验的偏倚。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们使用荟萃分析综合了每个结局的结果,使用随机效应模型计算二分类结局的风险比(rr)和风险差(RD), 95%置信区间(ci)。对于连续结果,我们计算平均差异(md)。如果合并数据不可行,我们使用综合无元分析(SWiM)对数据进行叙述性总结。我们根据GRADE方法总结了证据的确定性。纳入研究:我们纳入了11项研究(2192名婴儿)。使用多种肠内脂类作为干预措施,包括藻类油、真菌油和鱼油,单独或联合使用。干预组接受:-单独服用鱼油或与其他油联合服用(三项研究,n = 1328);-单独使用藻油或与其他油混合使用(8项研究,n = 864)。对照组接受不干预或其他油,如葵花籽油、红花油、橄榄油或中链甘油三酯(MCT)油。大多数研究包括接受肠内脂质补充剂的早产儿,同时主要接受肠外营养和少量肠内营养,因此被认为有PNALD的风险。没有研究检查肠内脂质补充对已确定的PNALD婴儿的影响。综合结果:与安慰剂或未治疗的有PNALD风险的婴儿相比,任何肠内脂质对PNALD的预防作用可能很小,甚至没有作用,通过住院期间和出生后第一年的胆汁淤积发生率来衡量;然而,证据是非常不确定的(RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13至3.14;3项研究,265名参与者;非常低确定性的证据)。肠内脂质可能对喂养不耐受几乎没有影响,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02至1.12;4项研究,236名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。有证据表明,肠内脂质导致实现完全肠内喂养所需的时间几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.98至0.78;1项研究,1273名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。肠内脂质补充可能减少住院时间,但证据非常不确定(MD -3.44, 95% CI -6.20至-0.68;I²不适用;1项研究,67名受试者;极低确定性证据)。肠内脂质可能对出院前和第一年的死亡率几乎没有影响,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.90至1.57;I²= 0%;11项研究,2200名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。没有研究报道PNALD在住院期间和出生后第一年的消退,或者是否需要肝移植。证据的局限性:干预组和对照组的肠内脂质种类繁多,这使得在研究之间进行比较具有挑战性。总的来说,选择偏倚的风险很高,证据的确定性很低。由于一些方法学上的限制,包括偏倚风险(分配、盲法和性能/检测问题)、排除高危婴儿的间接性、结果定义的不一致、小样本和宽置信区间的不精确,证据的确定性被降低。 研究报告的不完整也引起了对发表偏倚的担忧。作者的结论是:关于肠内脂质在住院期间和出生后第一年预防PNALD的作用,证据是非常不确定的。在喂养不耐受或实现完全肠内喂养的时间方面可能几乎没有差异。它们可能会缩短住院时间,可能不会降低或增加有PNALD风险的婴儿在出院前或出生后第一年的死亡率。由于样本小、不一致和存在偏倚风险,现有数据的确定性非常低,因此我们无法得出关于肠内脂质对有PNALD风险的婴儿的影响的结论。没有研究评估PNALD在住院期间和生命第一年的消退,或是否需要肝移植。需要精心设计的研究来评估不同肠内脂质对有PNALD风险或已患有PNALD的婴儿的短期和长期影响。未来的研究应侧重于解决肠内脂质制剂的异质性和评估结果的不一致性。资金来源:Cochrane综述没有专门的资金来源。注册:协议(2021)DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014353。
{"title":"Enteral lipid supplements for the prevention and treatment of parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease in infants.","authors":"Muralidhar H Premkumar, Katie A Huff, Chris Cooper, Jane Cracknell, Mohan Pammi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014353.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD014353.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Enteral lipid formulations may offer benefits according to preclinical studies, but their effectiveness and safety in preventing and treating parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD) in infants remains unknown.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To evaluate the benefits and harms of enteral lipid supplementation for the prevention and treatment of PNALD in infants.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors. The latest search was in December 2024.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included parallel, randomized control trials (RCTs) in infants comparing enteral lipid supplements with either a placebo or no intervention in infants who were either at risk or who had PNALD. We excluded studies involving infants receiving enteral feeds without the need for parenteral nutrition, as they were neither at risk for PNALD, nor diagnosed with PNALD, and infants with cholestasis secondary to primary liver disease, inborn errors of metabolism, or congenital infection.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our primary outcomes were the prevention of PNALD during hospital stay and the first year of life; and resolution of PNALD during hospital stay and the first year of life. Other outcomes included feeding intolerance during the hospital stay, time to full feeds measured in days during the hospital stay, length of hospital stay in days, need for liver transplantation in the first year of life and all-cause mortality up to hospital discharge and in the first year of life.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We used the Cochrane risk of bias 1 (RoB 1) tool to assess bias in the RCTs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analyses where possible, using random-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MDs). If combining the data was not feasible, we summarized data narratively using Synthesis without Metaanalysis (SWiM). We summarized the certainty of evidence according to GRADE methods.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 11 studies (2192 infants). A variety of enteral lipids were used as interventions, including algal oil, fungal oil, and fish oil, either alone or in combination. The intervention groups received: - Fish oil alone or in combination with other oils (three studies; n = 1328); - Algal oil alone or in combination with other oils (eight studies; n = 864). The comparison groups received either no intervention or other oils, such as sunflower oil, safflower oil, olive oil, or medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil. Most studies included preterm infants who received enteral lipid supplements while primarily on parenteral nutrition and minimal enteral nutrition, thus being co","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD014353"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12853417/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146084550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Behavioural interventions for improving oral hygiene in adults with periodontal diseases. 改善成人牙周病患者口腔卫生的行为干预。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-28 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012049.pub2
Lucy O'Malley, Sharon R Lewis, Philip M Preshaw, Philip Riley, Pauline Adair, Marc L E Edwards, Heather Raison, Matthew J Byrne, George Kitsaras, Pia-Merete Jervøe-Storm
<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Periodontal diseases are common chronic inflammations in adults and can impact quality of life. Optimal oral hygiene behaviour is essential for establishing and maintaining periodontal health and ensuring treatment has the best chance of success. Therefore, it is important to establish effective ways to support adults with periodontal disease to maintain their oral hygiene.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the impact of behavioural interventions aimed at improving oral hygiene in adults with periodontal diseases (including gingivitis and periodontitis).</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and three other databases up to 3 July 2024. We also searched two trials registers (26 February 2025) and reference lists of eligible studies and related systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with periodontitis or gingivitis that evaluated interventions involving behaviour change techniques (BCTs) aimed at improving oral hygiene.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our outcomes were bleeding, gingival inflammation, other clinical markers of periodontal disease (plaque, probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment loss (CAL)), and self-reported measures of oral health-related behaviours. We used any clinically relevant measure and the final follow-up time point reported by study authors.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Given the nature of the data, we synthesised results using Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 25 RCTs involving 1422 adults. Nineteen studies included only adults with periodontitis, and five only adults with gingivitis; one study included both disease types. Each study included different interventions, which we classified according to the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy (Michie and colleagues 2013) and described using BCT cluster labels. The evaluated interventions adopted a range of BCTs, including: goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, natural consequences, comparison of behaviour, associations, repetition and substitution, comparison of outcomes, reward and threat, regulation, antecedents, identity, scheduled consequences, and self-belief. Active controls included feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, comparison of behaviour, repetition and substitution, and antecedents.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes below to be very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency (between directions of effect), and imprecision (small sample sizes, or effect estimates including no benefit to either group). Behavioural interventions compared with an active control for adults
三项研究(其中一项有两个干预组)报告,在随访结束时,接受行为干预的参与者比接受积极对照的参与者牙龈出血少。一项集群随机对照试验报告,在基线时牙龈出血< 20%的参与者中,行为干预组的牙龈出血比积极对照组减少得更多。然而,一项非常小的研究报告了非常不精确的牙龈出血数据,并且在集群随机对照试验中,对于基线牙龈出血≥20%的参与者,牙龈出血减少的数据也同样不精确。一项研究发现,两组之间的GI几乎没有差异;两项研究报告了斑块的不精确数据。一项研究发现,干预后牙龈袋深度减少。没有关于不良反应的数据。一项研究发现,在每天至少刷牙两次的自我报告中,两组之间几乎没有差异。然而,上述报告结果的证据是非常不确定的。作者的结论:目前没有足够的证据表明行为干预对牙龈和牙周病临床指标的有效性。因此,我们无法得出任何结论,关于他们的有效性,以改善口腔卫生的成人牙周病。未来的研究应侧重于基于貌似合理的行动机制开发的干预措施,以进一步了解干预措施如何改变行为。未来的试验应设法解决本综述所强调的方法学局限性。此外,今后试验的报告应当全面和透明。资助:本Cochrane综述由宾夕法尼亚大学牙科医学院资助(部分)。注册:协议可通过DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012049获得。
{"title":"Behavioural interventions for improving oral hygiene in adults with periodontal diseases.","authors":"Lucy O'Malley, Sharon R Lewis, Philip M Preshaw, Philip Riley, Pauline Adair, Marc L E Edwards, Heather Raison, Matthew J Byrne, George Kitsaras, Pia-Merete Jervøe-Storm","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD012049.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD012049.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Periodontal diseases are common chronic inflammations in adults and can impact quality of life. Optimal oral hygiene behaviour is essential for establishing and maintaining periodontal health and ensuring treatment has the best chance of success. Therefore, it is important to establish effective ways to support adults with periodontal disease to maintain their oral hygiene.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To determine the impact of behavioural interventions aimed at improving oral hygiene in adults with periodontal diseases (including gingivitis and periodontitis).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and three other databases up to 3 July 2024. We also searched two trials registers (26 February 2025) and reference lists of eligible studies and related systematic reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with periodontitis or gingivitis that evaluated interventions involving behaviour change techniques (BCTs) aimed at improving oral hygiene.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our outcomes were bleeding, gingival inflammation, other clinical markers of periodontal disease (plaque, probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment loss (CAL)), and self-reported measures of oral health-related behaviours. We used any clinically relevant measure and the final follow-up time point reported by study authors.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Given the nature of the data, we synthesised results using Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 25 RCTs involving 1422 adults. Nineteen studies included only adults with periodontitis, and five only adults with gingivitis; one study included both disease types. Each study included different interventions, which we classified according to the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) taxonomy (Michie and colleagues 2013) and described using BCT cluster labels. The evaluated interventions adopted a range of BCTs, including: goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, natural consequences, comparison of behaviour, associations, repetition and substitution, comparison of outcomes, reward and threat, regulation, antecedents, identity, scheduled consequences, and self-belief. Active controls included feedback and monitoring, shaping knowledge, comparison of behaviour, repetition and substitution, and antecedents.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;We judged the certainty of evidence for all outcomes below to be very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency (between directions of effect), and imprecision (small sample sizes, or effect estimates including no benefit to either group). Behavioural interventions compared with an active control for adults ","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD012049"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12849544/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146060513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) versus open surgery for presumed benign ovarian tumours. 假定良性卵巢肿瘤的微创手术(机器人辅助或腹腔镜)与开放手术。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-28 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015717
Lidia Rf Medeiros, Maria Ines da Rosa, Tamy Colonetti, Antonio Jose Grande, Maria Laura Rodrigues Uggioni, Airton T Stein

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) compared with open surgery (laparotomy or mini-laparotomy) on benefits and harms in the management of presumed benign ovarian tumours.

目的:这是Cochrane综述(干预)的一个方案。目的如下:评估微创手术(机器人辅助或腹腔镜)与开放手术(剖腹手术或小剖腹手术)在治疗良性卵巢肿瘤中的利弊。
{"title":"Minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) versus open surgery for presumed benign ovarian tumours.","authors":"Lidia Rf Medeiros, Maria Ines da Rosa, Tamy Colonetti, Antonio Jose Grande, Maria Laura Rodrigues Uggioni, Airton T Stein","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015717","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD015717","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted or laparoscopic) compared with open surgery (laparotomy or mini-laparotomy) on benefits and harms in the management of presumed benign ovarian tumours.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD015717"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12849974/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146060458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis. 引产方法:网络元分析。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-27 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015234.pub2
Siwanon Rattanakanokchai, Ioannis D Gallos, Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Nuntasiri Eamudomkarn, Kyaw Lwin Show, Khaing Nwe Tin, Olufemi T Oladapo, Doris Chou, Ben Willem J Mol, Wentao Li, Pisake Lumbiganon, Arri Coomarasamy, Malcolm J Price
<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Induction of labour (IoL) aims to initiate labour when the risks of continuing pregnancy outweigh the benefits. Over 10 methods are currently available, yet the most effective and safest method remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the benefits and harms of various cervical ripening and IoL methods at or beyond term labour and to rank the methods.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP until 1 February 2023.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IoL methods among women with a live fetus at or beyond term labour (gestational age ≥ 37 weeks). We focused on the methods currently recommended by international guidelines and those proposed by previous Cochrane reviews.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcomes included failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, caesarean section due to any causes, caesarean section due to non-reassuring fetal status, uterine hyperstimulation with changes in the heartbeat of the baby before birth, perinatal death, and severe neonatal morbidity.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We assessed bias and trustworthiness using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trustworthiness Tool (CPS-TST), respectively. The final analyses only included trials that met the CPS-TST.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We performed pair-wise meta-analyses using a random-effects model and network meta-analyses (NMA) with a frequentist approach. We reported analyses and results separately for two populations: 1) women without a previous caesarean section and a mix of women with or without a previous caesarean section (where more than 50% of participants had no previous caesarean section), and 2) women with a previous caesarean section. We used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) to present treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes using the GRADE approach for NMA. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to estimate treatment ranking.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>The analysis included 106 RCTs assessing 13 IoL methods among 30,348 women. Most trials (84.9%) were conducted in inpatient settings. Only two RCTs recruited women with previous caesarean section, and seven RCTs recruited a mix of women with or without a previous caesarean section.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We evaluated the effects of the following IoL methods: vaginal misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), oral misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), sublingual or buccal misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), controlled-release misoprostol vaginal pessary, vaginal dinoprostone (tablet or gel), controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary, oxytocin (alone), nitric oxide donors, balloon catheters, osmotic cervical dilator
一氧化氮供体(RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 ~ 0.47,减少3.9%,中等可信证据)、渗透性宫颈扩张器(RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 ~ 0.42,减少3.8%,中等可信证据)、气囊导管(RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 ~ 0.69,减少2.5%,中等可信证据)、口服米索前列腺醇(≤50 μg) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 ~ 0.99,减少1.6%,中等确定性证据)与阴道米索前列醇(≤50 μg)相比可能降低了这一结果。与无活性干预(安慰剂、无干预或预期治疗)相比,阴道使用米索前列醇(≤50 μg) (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.16至10.35)可能会增加该结果的风险。排名最高的三种方法是一氧化氮供体、渗透性宫颈扩张器和非活性方法(安慰剂、无干预和预期管理)。4)围产期死亡没有明确的证据证明这一结果,因为这是罕见的(在所有试验中报告了10例)。作者的结论是:对于没有剖宫产史的妇女以及有或没有剖宫产史的妇女,没有明确的证据表明任何一种人工晶状体方法比阴道米索前列醇(≤50 μg)对24小时内阴道分娩失败、胎儿状态不稳定导致剖宫产和围产期死亡的结果更有效。一氧化氮供体、渗透性宫颈扩张器、球囊导管和口服米索前列醇(≤50 μg)可能会降低胎儿出生前心跳变化导致子宫过度刺激的风险。经费:本综述没有专门的经费。注册:协议(2023):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015234。
{"title":"Methods of induction of labour: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Siwanon Rattanakanokchai, Ioannis D Gallos, Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Nuntasiri Eamudomkarn, Kyaw Lwin Show, Khaing Nwe Tin, Olufemi T Oladapo, Doris Chou, Ben Willem J Mol, Wentao Li, Pisake Lumbiganon, Arri Coomarasamy, Malcolm J Price","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015234.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD015234.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Induction of labour (IoL) aims to initiate labour when the risks of continuing pregnancy outweigh the benefits. Over 10 methods are currently available, yet the most effective and safest method remains unclear.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To compare the benefits and harms of various cervical ripening and IoL methods at or beyond term labour and to rank the methods.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP until 1 February 2023.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IoL methods among women with a live fetus at or beyond term labour (gestational age ≥ 37 weeks). We focused on the methods currently recommended by international guidelines and those proposed by previous Cochrane reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes included failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, caesarean section due to any causes, caesarean section due to non-reassuring fetal status, uterine hyperstimulation with changes in the heartbeat of the baby before birth, perinatal death, and severe neonatal morbidity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We assessed bias and trustworthiness using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trustworthiness Tool (CPS-TST), respectively. The final analyses only included trials that met the CPS-TST.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We performed pair-wise meta-analyses using a random-effects model and network meta-analyses (NMA) with a frequentist approach. We reported analyses and results separately for two populations: 1) women without a previous caesarean section and a mix of women with or without a previous caesarean section (where more than 50% of participants had no previous caesarean section), and 2) women with a previous caesarean section. We used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) to present treatment effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence for critical outcomes using the GRADE approach for NMA. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to estimate treatment ranking.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;The analysis included 106 RCTs assessing 13 IoL methods among 30,348 women. Most trials (84.9%) were conducted in inpatient settings. Only two RCTs recruited women with previous caesarean section, and seven RCTs recruited a mix of women with or without a previous caesarean section.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;We evaluated the effects of the following IoL methods: vaginal misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), oral misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), sublingual or buccal misoprostol (≤ 50 μg), controlled-release misoprostol vaginal pessary, vaginal dinoprostone (tablet or gel), controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary, oxytocin (alone), nitric oxide donors, balloon catheters, osmotic cervical dilator","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD015234"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12834601/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146050668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Clinically indicated removal versus routine removal of peripheral venous catheters. 临床指征切除与常规切除外周静脉导管。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-27 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub6
Karina R Charles, Jessica A Schults, Nicole Marsh, Sonya R Osborne, Sharon Rees, Gabor Mihala, Sarah Smith, Claire M Rickard
<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Catheter-related bloodstream infection is a potentially life-threatening complication of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs). Routine PVC removal at set time intervals may prevent bloodstream infection and thrombophlebitis; however, it requires additional replacement PVC insertions and costs. An alternative is clinically indicated removal when the PVC is no longer needed, functional, comfortable or complication-free.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of clinically indicated removal versus routine removal of PVCs.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov registries to 21 January 2025. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and potentially useful articles.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinically indicated with routine PVC removal for patients requiring a PVC. We excluded randomised cross-over trials.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Critical outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection, primary bloodstream infection, local infection and mortality. Important, but not critical, outcomes were thrombophlebitis, infiltration and catheter occlusion. Outcomes considered of limited importance included cost, pain during infusion, satisfaction and the number of catheters per participant.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>For this update (4th; initial publication 2010), we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess risk of bias in the studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Six review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where appropriate, we pooled data using fixed-effect models in the first instance. Effect measures included risk ratios (RR) for categorical outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and rate ratio (RaR) for incidence rates, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>All studies in the previous version of the review were included (n = 9), and we identified five new studies. The update included 14 RCTs with 11,428 participants. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Thirteen studies were conducted in acute hospitals and one in a community setting. Eleven studies assessed adult populations, and three studies included paediatric or neonatal populations. All studies had a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, limited by potential detection bias for subjective outcomes, inconsistency across studies and imprecision due to small sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Clinically indicated removal likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstre
理由:导管相关性血流感染是外周静脉导管(pvc)潜在的危及生命的并发症。定期清除聚氯乙烯可预防血流感染和血栓性静脉炎;然而,它需要额外更换PVC插入物和成本。另一种选择是当不再需要PVC,功能,舒适或无并发症时,临床指示切除。目的:评价临床指征性室性早搏切除与常规室性早搏切除的效果。检索方法:我们检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase和CINAHL数据库,以及WHO ICTRP和ClinicalTrials.gov注册库,截止到2025年1月21日。我们还检索了检索到的研究和潜在有用文章的参考文献列表。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),比较临床指征和常规PVC切除对需要PVC切除的患者的影响。我们排除了随机交叉试验。结果:关键结果为导管相关血流感染、原发性血流感染、局部感染和死亡率。重要但不关键的结果是血栓性静脉炎、浸润和导管阻塞。被认为不太重要的结果包括成本、输注过程中的疼痛、满意度和每位参与者的导管数量。偏倚风险:在本次更新(第4次;2010年首次发表)中,我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB 1)来评估研究的偏倚风险。综合方法:六位综述作者独立选择研究,提取数据并评估偏倚风险。在适当的情况下,我们首先使用固定效应模型汇集数据。效果测量包括分类结果的风险比(RR)、连续结果的平均差异(MD)和发病率的比率(RaR),每个指标都有95%的置信区间(CI)。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。纳入的研究:纳入了先前版本综述中的所有研究(n = 9),并确定了5项新研究。更新包括14项随机对照试验,11428名参与者。研究在澳大利亚、巴西、中国、印度、伊朗、台湾和英国进行。13项研究在急症医院进行,1项在社区环境中进行。11项研究评估了成人人群,3项研究包括儿科或新生儿人群。所有研究在一个或多个偏倚风险域中均存在高偏倚风险。证据的确定性为低至中等,受主观结果的潜在检测偏差、研究之间的不一致和小样本量导致的不精确的限制。综合结果:与常规拔除相比,临床指征的拔除可能导致导管相关血流感染(RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08至4.68;10项研究,10,208名受试者;低确定性证据)或原发性血流感染(RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22至1.38;3项研究,6370名受试者;低确定性证据)的发生率几乎没有差异。与常规拔除相比,临床指示的拔除导致局部感染风险几乎没有差异(RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.46至18.39;9项研究,8993名参与者;低确定性证据)。临床指征切除与常规切除相比,死亡率无明显差异(RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 - 2.89; 2项研究,6170名受试者;低确定性证据)。无论是临床指征的PVC切除还是常规切除,所有关键结果的发生率都极低。我们不确定临床指示的室性早搏切除对血栓性静脉炎的影响(RR为1.31,95% CI为0.94至1.82;14项研究,10,780名受试者;极低确定性证据),每1000个导管日的血栓性静脉炎发生率几乎没有差异(RaR为0.98,95% CI为0.78至1.22;9项研究,9658名受试者;低确定性证据)。低确定性证据表明,与临床指征切除相比,常规切除对每位受试者减少浸润和闭塞的影响较小(RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01至1.53;11项研究,10,491名受试者;RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06至1.99;12项研究,10,691名受试者)。临床指示切除与常规切除相比,每1000个导管天的浸润率几乎没有差异(RaR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79至1.57;8项研究,9458名参与者;低确定性证据)。与常规拔除相比,低确定性证据表明,临床指示的拔除可能导致每1000个导管天的导管阻塞几乎没有差异(RaR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85至1.63;9项研究,9658名参与者)。与常规移除相比,临床指示的室性早搏移除与器械相关成本的小幅降低相关(MD -10.88 AUD(澳元)(2024),95% CI -13.78至-7.98;4项研究,4606名参与者)。 一项单独的研究(1319名参与者)报告了与器械相关的疼痛和满意度结果。与常规拔除相比,临床指示的室性早搏拔除也与每位受试者所需导管数量的少量减少相关(MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25至-0.03;8项研究,8944名受试者)。作者的结论是:与常规切除相比,临床指示的室性早搏切除对导管相关血流感染、原发性血流感染、局部感染或死亡率的风险没有影响,并且可能对血栓性静脉炎的发生率或每1000个导管日的发生率几乎没有影响。有证据表明,常规切除可能导致浸润和导管阻塞的发生率略有下降,但对每1000个导管日的发生率几乎没有影响;然而,我们对效果估计的信心是有限的。真实的效果可能与对效果的估计有很大的不同。与常规拔除相比,临床指征的拔除可减少少量费用。经费:Cochrane综述的更新没有专门的经费。注册:方案(2009):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798原始评审(2010):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub2评审更新(2013):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub3评审更新(2015):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub4评审更新(2019):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub5。
{"title":"Clinically indicated removal versus routine removal of peripheral venous catheters.","authors":"Karina R Charles, Jessica A Schults, Nicole Marsh, Sonya R Osborne, Sharon Rees, Gabor Mihala, Sarah Smith, Claire M Rickard","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub6","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub6","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Catheter-related bloodstream infection is a potentially life-threatening complication of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs). Routine PVC removal at set time intervals may prevent bloodstream infection and thrombophlebitis; however, it requires additional replacement PVC insertions and costs. An alternative is clinically indicated removal when the PVC is no longer needed, functional, comfortable or complication-free.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the effects of clinically indicated removal versus routine removal of PVCs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov registries to 21 January 2025. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and potentially useful articles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinically indicated with routine PVC removal for patients requiring a PVC. We excluded randomised cross-over trials.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Critical outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection, primary bloodstream infection, local infection and mortality. Important, but not critical, outcomes were thrombophlebitis, infiltration and catheter occlusion. Outcomes considered of limited importance included cost, pain during infusion, satisfaction and the number of catheters per participant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;For this update (4th; initial publication 2010), we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess risk of bias in the studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Six review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Where appropriate, we pooled data using fixed-effect models in the first instance. Effect measures included risk ratios (RR) for categorical outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and rate ratio (RaR) for incidence rates, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;All studies in the previous version of the review were included (n = 9), and we identified five new studies. The update included 14 RCTs with 11,428 participants. Studies were conducted in Australia, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Thirteen studies were conducted in acute hospitals and one in a community setting. Eleven studies assessed adult populations, and three studies included paediatric or neonatal populations. All studies had a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, limited by potential detection bias for subjective outcomes, inconsistency across studies and imprecision due to small sample sizes.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;Clinically indicated removal likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of catheter-related bloodstre","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD007798"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12838767/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146050572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Bipolar coagulation techniques versus the clamp-crush technique for elective liver resection. 双极凝血技术与钳压技术在择期肝切除术中的比较。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-23 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016320
Mario Kopljar, Roman Pavić, Zrinko Madžar, Tihomil Žiger

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of a bipolar coagulation technique versus a clamp-crush technique for liver resection in children and adults undergoing elective liver resection.

目的:这是Cochrane综述(干预)的一个方案。目的如下:评估双极凝固技术与钳压技术在儿童和成人择期肝切除术中的利弊。
{"title":"Bipolar coagulation techniques versus the clamp-crush technique for elective liver resection.","authors":"Mario Kopljar, Roman Pavić, Zrinko Madžar, Tihomil Žiger","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016320","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016320","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of a bipolar coagulation technique versus a clamp-crush technique for liver resection in children and adults undergoing elective liver resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD016320"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12828883/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146028292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. 辅助生殖技术中的囊胚期与卵裂期胚胎移植。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-23 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub7
Demián Glujovsky, Simone Cornelisse, Deborah Blake, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Agustín Ciapponi
<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Blastocyst-stage transfer has increasingly replaced cleavage-stage transfer in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) programmes. It is thought to improve live birth rates by better synchronising embryo development with the endometrium and allowing self-selection of viable embryos. However, it remains uncertain whether extended culture confers a true biological advantage or mainly reflects selection in vitro, and whether benefits per transfer translate into improved cumulative live birth rates across different patient populations and laboratory settings.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer on cumulative live birth rate per woman (defined as the occurrence of at least one live birth resulting from the fresh transfer and all subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers derived from the same oocyte retrieval), live birth rate per fresh transfer, and cumulative preterm birth outcomes using the same definition.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>On 1 October 2024, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched two trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that involved women undergoing an assisted reproductive technology cycle and compared blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfers.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcomes of interest were cumulative live birth rate from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles, live birth rate per fresh transfer, and cumulative preterm birth rate from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles. Our important outcomes of interest were clinical pregnancy rate per fresh transfer, miscarriage rate per fresh transfer, embryo freezing rate, and failure-to-transfer rate.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We assessed the risk of bias in the evidence using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible (with a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model). Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we provided a narrative description of the results. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 36 parallel-design RCTs (8389 participants). Three studies reported cumulative live birth rate (cLBR); two studies reported cumulative obstetric and perinatal outcomes; and 19 studies reported live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Blastocyst-stage transfer may increase cLBR within 12 months after oocyte retrieval (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47; I² = 70%; 3 studies, 2328 women; low certain
原理:在体外受精(IVF)项目中,囊胚期移植逐渐取代了卵裂期移植。人们认为,通过更好地同步胚胎与子宫内膜的发育,并允许自我选择可存活的胚胎,可以提高活产率。然而,延长培养是否具有真正的生物学优势或主要反映体外选择仍然不确定,以及每次转移的益处是否转化为不同患者群体和实验室环境中累积活产率的提高。目的:评估囊胚期(第5天至第6天)胚胎移植与卵裂期(第2天至第3天)胚胎移植对每位妇女累计活产率(定义为至少一次新鲜移植导致的活产,以及随后所有来自同一卵母细胞的冻融胚胎移植)、每次新鲜移植的活产率和使用相同定义的累积早产结果的影响。检索方法:在2024年10月1日,我们检索了Cochrane妇科和生育组对照试验专业注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO和CINAHL。此外,我们检索了两个试验注册库,相关论文的参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家以获取任何额外的试验。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct),这些试验涉及接受辅助生殖技术周期的妇女,并比较了囊胚期和卵裂期胚胎移植。结果:我们感兴趣的关键结果是新鲜和冻融循环的累积活产率,每次新鲜移植的活产率,以及新鲜和冻融循环的累积早产率。我们感兴趣的重要结果是每次新鲜移植的临床妊娠率、每次新鲜移植的流产率、胚胎冷冻率和移植失败率。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane的RoB 2工具评估证据的偏倚风险。综合方法:我们尽可能使用meta分析(固定效应Mantel-Haenszel模型)综合每个结果的结果。由于数据的性质,这是不可能的,我们提供了结果的叙述性描述。我们使用GRADE来评估证据的确定性。纳入的研究:我们纳入了36项平行设计的随机对照试验(8389名受试者)。三项研究报告了累积活产率(cLBR);两项研究报告了累积的产科和围产期结局;19项研究报告了每次新鲜移植的活产率(LBR)。综合结果:卵母细胞取出后12个月内,囊胚期移植可能增加cLBR (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 - 1.47; I²= 70%;3项研究,2328名女性;低确定性)。高异质性似乎可以用一项大型研究来解释,该研究中,女性平均接受两次或两次以上的胚胎移植,不同策略之间几乎没有差异(or 1.02, 95% CI 0.81至1.28;1202名女性;低确定性)。荟萃分析结果表明,如果62%的女性通过新鲜或冷冻的卵裂期移植实现活产,那么63%至70%的女性通过囊胚期移植实现活产。囊胚期移植的每次新鲜移植的LBR可能更高(OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23至1.56;19项研究,4787名女性;中等确定性)。对于新鲜移植,这表明如果32%的女性在卵裂期移植后实现活产,那么在囊胚期移植后实现活产的比例为37%至43%。新鲜和冷冻移植后的累积早产率可能高于囊胚期移植(OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.14至2.59;2项研究,2194名妇女;中等确定性)。这表明,如果3.5%的女性在卵裂期移植后出现早产,那么3.9%至8.5%的女性在囊胚期移植后会出现早产。每次新鲜移植的临床妊娠率(CPR)在囊胚期移植中可能更高(OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20至1.44;I²= 52%;36项研究,8389名妇女;低确定性)。这表明,如果39%的女性在新鲜的卵裂期移植后实现临床妊娠,那么43%至48%的女性可能会在囊胚期移植后实现临床妊娠。两组之间的流产率可能几乎没有差异(OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.33; I²= 0%;25项研究;6674名妇女;低确定性)。在囊胚期移植组中,可冷冻保存用于后期移植的多余胚胎的妇女比例可能较低(OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.38至0.52;I²= 82%;17项研究;4620名妇女;低确定性)。囊胚期移植组的移植失败率可能更高(OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.94 - 3.73; I²= 35%;21项研究;5145名妇女;低确定性)。大多数结果的证据确定性较低;它受到偏倚风险、异质性、不精确和随机化方法报告不足的限制。 在敏感性分析中,当我们从高偏倚风险的研究中删除数据时,结果相似。作者的结论是:在随访的前12个月,在妊娠预后良好的妇女中,囊胚期胚胎移植后的累积活产率(cLBR)可能高于卵裂期移植。然而,虽然一些参与者可能在这个时间范围内使用了所有可用的胚胎,但其他人可能会有胚胎剩余,因此在胚胎完全耗尽后,cLBR估计可能会有所不同。与预后良好的卵裂期移植相比,新鲜囊胚期移植可能增加活产率,并可能提高临床妊娠率,但可能对流产率几乎没有影响。累积早产(< 37周)可能随着囊胚期转移而增加。胚胎冷冻可能更常见,而卵裂期胚胎移植失败的频率更低。然而,尚不清楚这些差异是否转化为更高的累积活产率,还是反映出治疗周期更长,成本和怀孕时间增加。这些发现不应推广到预后不良的妇女,她们在大多数纳入的研究中代表性不足。未来的研究应优先评估长期随访时的累计活产率、流产率的测量和产科结果的评估,特别是对预后不良妇女的评估。资金来源:Cochrane综述没有专门的资金来源。注册:协议可通过DOI 10.1001/14651858: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118获得。审查版本:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub2;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub3;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5;https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6。
{"title":"Blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.","authors":"Demián Glujovsky, Simone Cornelisse, Deborah Blake, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Agustín Ciapponi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub7","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub7","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Blastocyst-stage transfer has increasingly replaced cleavage-stage transfer in IVF (in vitro fertilisation) programmes. It is thought to improve live birth rates by better synchronising embryo development with the endometrium and allowing self-selection of viable embryos. However, it remains uncertain whether extended culture confers a true biological advantage or mainly reflects selection in vitro, and whether benefits per transfer translate into improved cumulative live birth rates across different patient populations and laboratory settings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the effects of blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer on cumulative live birth rate per woman (defined as the occurrence of at least one live birth resulting from the fresh transfer and all subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers derived from the same oocyte retrieval), live birth rate per fresh transfer, and cumulative preterm birth outcomes using the same definition.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;On 1 October 2024, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched two trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that involved women undergoing an assisted reproductive technology cycle and compared blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryo transfers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes of interest were cumulative live birth rate from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles, live birth rate per fresh transfer, and cumulative preterm birth rate from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles. Our important outcomes of interest were clinical pregnancy rate per fresh transfer, miscarriage rate per fresh transfer, embryo freezing rate, and failure-to-transfer rate.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We assessed the risk of bias in the evidence using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis where possible (with a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model). Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we provided a narrative description of the results. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 36 parallel-design RCTs (8389 participants). Three studies reported cumulative live birth rate (cLBR); two studies reported cumulative obstetric and perinatal outcomes; and 19 studies reported live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;Blastocyst-stage transfer may increase cLBR within 12 months after oocyte retrieval (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47; I² = 70%; 3 studies, 2328 women; low certain","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD002118"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12828884/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146028344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Weight management for chronic low back pain. 慢性腰痛的体重管理。
IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pub Date : 2026-01-22 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016276
Emma Mudd, Amanda Tutty, Steven J Kamper, Aidan G Cashin, Zoe A Michaleff, Simon Re Davidson, Eduardo Alves, Stuart Browne, Jane Linton, James H McAuley, Christopher M Williams

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of weight management interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain in adults.

目的:这是Cochrane综述(干预)的一个方案。目的如下:评估体重管理干预对成人慢性非特异性腰痛的利与弊。
{"title":"Weight management for chronic low back pain.","authors":"Emma Mudd, Amanda Tutty, Steven J Kamper, Aidan G Cashin, Zoe A Michaleff, Simon Re Davidson, Eduardo Alves, Stuart Browne, Jane Linton, James H McAuley, Christopher M Williams","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016276","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016276","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of weight management interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain in adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"1 ","pages":"CD016276"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12825355/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146017511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1