In December 2019, a new type viral pneumonia cases occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province; and then named "2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)" by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 12 January 2020. For it is a never been experienced respiratory disease before and with infection ability widely and quickly, it attracted the world's attention but without treatment and control manual. For the request from frontline clinicians and public health professionals of 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia management, an evidence-based guideline urgently needs to be developed. Therefore, we drafted this guideline according to the rapid advice guidelines methodology and general rules of WHO guideline development; we also added the first-hand management data of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. This guideline includes the guideline methodology, epidemiological characteristics, disease screening and population prevention, diagnosis, treatment and control (including traditional Chinese Medicine), nosocomial infection prevention and control, and disease nursing of the 2019-nCoV. Moreover, we also provide a whole process of a successful treatment case of the severe 2019-nCoV infected pneumonia and experience and lessons of hospital rescue for 2019-nCoV infections. This rapid advice guideline is suitable for the first frontline doctors and nurses, managers of hospitals and healthcare sections, community residents, public health persons, relevant researchers, and all person who are interested in the 2019-nCoV.

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.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the

No abstract

Background: In recent decades, research on drug therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains one of the major hot-spots in the field of critical care medicine, but relevant data are not satisfactory. Our aim was to assess the status and trends of the most cited articles on drug therapy for VAP through bibliometric approaches. Methods: The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science core collection database was searched for the VAP-related articles. The time period for retrieval was from the beginning of the database to September 30, 2018. The top 100 most cited articles were selected to obtain their information on the authors, title, publication, number of citations, author’s affiliations, country, etc. These general information and bibliometric data were collected for analysis. VOSviewer software was used to generate a term co-occurrence graph that visualized a reference pattern for different terms in the 100 articles. Results: The number of citations for the 100 selected articles ranged from 142 to 3,218. These articles were published in 31 different journals. The top three journals in terms of the number of our selected articles they published were “ Critical Care Medicine ” (17 articles), “ American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine ” (11 articles) and “ Clinical Infectious Diseases ” (10 articles). The most frequently nominated author was Marin H. Kollef from the University of Washington, and of the top 100 articles, 16 listed his name. These top 100 articles were published after the year of 2000. The most common type of article in the top 100 was an original article (53%). The United States and France were the countries that contributed the most articles to the top 100. Gram-negative bacilli, pseudomonas aeruginosa, antibiotics, risk factors and other terms appeared more frequently, suggesting that attentions on this issue currently focused on the rational application and management of antibiotics. Conclusion: This study analyzed the 100 most cited articles on drug-treated VAP, and provided insights into the historical developments and characteristics of the most cited articles in the field of VAP.