Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient -reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

Page 5 likely to yield the most reliable results. Kirchoff et al. (2011) provide a more recent comparison with three researchers (two expert, one novice without crater counting experience) from the same lab who used the same technique to identify, measure, and, in this case, classify craters by preservation state. They used Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera Wide-Angle Camera (LROC WAC) images of Mare Orientale. The two experienced analysts had counts that differed by 20-40% in a given diameter range, while the novice counter identified numerous features that are probably not craters, differing from the other two by >100% over some diameter ranges. They also had significant variation among the preservation states attributed to each crater, despite a relatively coarse fourpoint scale. This work showed that despite common thinking that crater counting is fairly easy and straightforward, there is a learning curve and an individual's crater counts should be discarded during the learning process. It also showed that even well defined crater morphologies may be difficult to classify uniformly. Hiesinger et al. (2012) also focused on lunar craters, in their case using LROC Narrow-Angle Camera (NAC) images at approximately 0.5 m/px. They were interested in reproducible results for better understanding the lunar cratering flux and performed a single test with two experienced researchers who used the same technique on the same image. The Heisinger et al.(2012) team found an overall variation of only ±2% between their analysts, a dispersion significantly less than previous work.What this brief review indicates is that while there has been some discussion in the literature about agreement between different researchers' crater identifications, (a) there has been no thorough discussion on researcher variability, (b) no published study discusses the variability when using different techniques for crater identification and measurement, (c) variation in crater morphology has not been discussed (e.g., sub-km craters appear substantially different at NAC pixel scales when compared with multi-km craters at WAC pixels scales), and (d) expert results have not been extensively compared with how well untrained or minimally trained crater counters do with the identification and measurement process. Given the proliferation of internet

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had an enormous impact worldwide, and vaccination is believed to be the method that will control the pandemic. Several types of vaccines developed using different platforms have been authorized, but the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous prime–boost vaccination with different vaccines remain largely unclear. Areas covered Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, Research Square, and SSRN were searched to investigate the immunogenicity and reactogenicity associated with heterologous vaccination. As of 30 June 2021, four trials including 1,862 participants were identified. Heterologous administration of BNT162b2 (BNT) in ChAdOx1 (ChAd)-primed participants (ChAd/BNT) showed noninferior immunogenicity to homologous BNT administration (both prime and booster were BNT vaccines, BNT/BNT) with tolerable reactogenicity and higher T cell responses. Compared with homologous ChAdOX1 vaccination (ChAd/ChAd), heterologous ChAd/BNT was found to elicit higher immunogenicity (ChAd/BNT vs. ChAd/ChAd, antibody titer ratio: 9.2). Expert opinion Our systematic review found robust immunogenicity and tolerable reactogenicity of heterologous administration of a BNT162b2 boost in ChAdOx1-primed participants. An additional benefit of stronger T cellular immunity was also observed. Heterologous vaccination is a reasonable and feasible strategy to combat COVID-19. Further studies are warranted to confirm the benefits and identify the optimal combinations, doses, and intervals.

We report here a novel two-stage i-DLD sorter through coupling inertial microfluidics with deterministic lateral displacement (DLD), allowing for precise, continuous, and size-based cell separation. The first stage spiral inertial microfluidic sorter is responsible for removing the overwhelming majority of background blood cells at a high-throughput manner. The precise and flow-rate insensitive DLD sorter with triangular posts serves as the second stage sorter which further removes the residual blood cells for obtaining high-purity tumor cells. After demonstrating the conceptual design, we characterize the performances of our two-stage i-DLD sorter for the separation of differently sized particles and cells. The characterization results show that a 100% complete separation of 15 and 7 μm particles was achieved, whereas a separation efficiency of over 99.9% and a target sample purity of 93.59% was realized for the separation of differently sized cells. Finally, we successfully apply our sorter for the separation of rare tumor cells from the diluted whole blood or WBCs at good performances. Our two-stage i-DLD sorter offers numerous advantages of label- and external field-free operation, high-efficiency and high-reliability separation, and high-throughput processing without clogging, and is promising as a potential tool for precise cell separation in low-resource settings.

The migration dynamics of particles with sizes ranging from micro- to nano-scales in spiral inertial microfluidic devices was investigated, and three different migration modes was discovered.