Background and objective: Cancer is a life-threatening disease worldwide and current standard therapy cannot fulfill all clinical needs. Chinese herbal injections have been widely used for cancer in Chinese and Western hospitals in China. This study aimed to apply evidence mapping in order to provide an overview of the clinical application of Chinese herbal injections in cancer care based on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.Methods and results: Seven databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses for ten Chinese herbal injections used in cancer treatment and covered in the Chinese national essential health insurance program. Excel 2016 and RStudio were used to integrate and process the data.In total 366 randomized controlled trials and 48 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the evidence mapping of herbal medicines including; Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, Kangai, Kanglaite, Xiaoaiping, Cinobufacin, Brucea javanica oil emulsion, Polyporus polysaccharide injection, and Astragalus polysaccharide for injection. Health insurance restricts the scope of clinical application for these herbal injections. The numbers of studies published increased, especially around 2013–2015. The most studied cancer types were lung cancer (118, 32.2%), colorectal cancer (39, 10.7%), and gastric cancer (39, 10.7%), and the most used injections were Compound Kushen (78, 21.3%), Shenqi Fuzheng (76, 20.8%), and Aidi (63, 17.2%). The most consistently reported benefits were observed for Compound Kushen, Shenqi Fuzheng, Aidi, and Kangai for tumor response, quality of life, myelosuppression, and enhancing immunity.Conclusion: The current evidence mapping provides an overview of the outcomes and effects of Chinese herbal injections used in cancer care, and offers information on their clinical application which warrants further evidence-based research in order to inform clinical and policy decision-making.

Background Dental interns are vulnerable to needlestick injuries (NSI). The objectives of this study were to examine the prevalence and characteristics of NSI exposures among dental interns during their first-year clinical training, assess risk factors, and evaluate reporting behaviours. Methods An online survey was conducted among dental interns of Class 2011–2017 at Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology (PKUSS), China. The self-administrated questionnaire consisted of information on demographic profiles, NSI characteristics, and reporting practices. The outcomes were presented by descriptive statistics. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess NSI sources using a forward step-wise approach. Results A total of 407 dental interns completed the survey (response rate 91.9%, 407/443), and 23.8% sustained at least one NSI. The mean number of NSIs per intern was 0.28 during the first clinical year. More occupation exposures occurred from October to December, between 13:00–15:00. Syringe needles were the most frequent sources, followed by dental burs, suture needles, and ultrasonic chips. The risk of peer-inflicted NSIs in the department of Paediatric Dentistry was 12.1 times higher than that in Oral Surgery (OR 12.1, 95% CI: 1.4-101.4). Appropriately 64.9% NSIs occurred when chairside assistants were absent. Compared to working alone, the risk of peer-inflicted NSIs was 32.3 times higher when providing chairside assistance (OR 32.3, 95% CI: 7.2-145.4). The left-hand index finger was the most commonly injured site. About 71.4% of exposures were reported in paperwork. Conclusions Dental interns are susceptible to NSIs during their first-year clinical training. Extra attention should be paid to syringe needles, dental burs, suture needles, and ultrasonic chips. The lack of chairside assistance is hazardous regarding NSIs. The training of chairside assistance of the first-year dental interns should be enhanced. First-year dental interns are required to increase their awareness of ignored behaviors related to NSI exposures.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a recently approved first-line therapy (adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone) for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the US and China, and to estimate the reasonable range of adebrelimab price from the decision-makers.Methods: Several partitioned survival models were built to compare the cost and effectiveness of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from previously published studies. Sensitivity, scenario and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the uncertainty of the model outcomes. Price simulation was conducted at three thresholds of willingness-to-pay (WTP), including WTP of $100,000 in the US and of $37,422 in China, 0.5WTP of $50,000 in the US and of $18,711 in China, and 1.5WTP of 150,000 in the US and of $56,133 in China.Findings: Base-case analysis at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $100,000, but not in China at the WTP threshold of $37,422. If PAP was taken into account, the regimen would be cost-effective in China at the given WTP. The results of price simulation indicated that adebrelimab plus chemotherapy was completely favored in the US if adebrelimab price was less than $8894.98/600 mg (total quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] were calculated with progression-based utility [PB-utility]) or $8912.51/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with time-to-death utility [TTD-utility]) at the WTP threshold of $100,000; if adebrelimab price was reduced by at least $202.03/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with PB-utility) or $103.06/600 mg (total QALYs were calculated with TTD-utility), the regimen was also cost-effective in China without PAP at the WTP threshold of $37,422. The above results were stable in the sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analysis found that the subgroup with better survival benefits tended to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, which was also associated with adebrelimab price.Implications: First-line adebrelimab plus chemotherapy represented a dominant treatment strategy comparing with chemotherapy alone in the US and also did in China with PAP at $1382.82/600 mg of adebrelimab price. Decision-makers could benefit from pricing strategy provided by this study in making optimal decisions. More evidences were needed to verify and improve the results.