Hongloumeng, Honglou Meng, Hong Loumeng, or Hong Lou Meng

The current Pinyin Romanization of Chinese book and journal titles is rich in examples of inconsistencies, and this problem has much more been identified than examined. The current paper traces the problem back to the guiding documents, analyzes their inborn problem. It is argued that the currently dominant practice of aggregating syllables is the source of the inconsistencies, and it results from ambiguous wordings and misconception of “ci” as the basic unit in the guiding documents. Based on this analysis, a practice of Romanizing Chinese on the basis of “zi” is put forward, and the underlying rationale analyzed. The purpose is to contribute to the solution of the issue of inconsistency and offer an approach to standardizing the practice of Pinyin Romanization of Chinese book and journal titles

Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis from the perspective of sinonasal epithelial dysfunction

BackgroundChronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a clinical syndrome primarily characterized by long-term mucosal inflammation of the nasal cavity and sinuses. The pathogenesis of CRS is still unclear due to its high heterogeneity. A number of studies have recently focused on the sinonasal epithelium. Thus, there has been a quantum leap in awareness of the role of the sinonasal epithelium, which is now understood as an active functional organ rather than simply an inert mechanical barrier. Undoubtedly, epithelial dysfunction plays a vital role in the onset and development of CRS.ObjectiveIn this article, we discuss the potential contribution of sinonasal epithelium dysfunction to CRS pathogenesis and explore a few current and developing therapeutic options targeting the sinonasal epithelium.ResultsImpaired mucociliary clearance (MCC) and an abnormal sinonasal epithelial barrier are usually considered to be the main causative factors in CRS. Epithelial-derived bioactive substances, such as cytokines, exosomes, and complements, play a vital role in the regulation of innate and adaptive immunity and contribute to the pathophysiological alterations of CRS. The phenomena of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), mucosal remodeling, and autophagy observed in CRS offer some novel insights into the pathogenesis of this disease. In addition, existing treatment options targeting disorder of sinonasal epithelium can help to relieve the main symptoms associated with CRS to some extent.ConclusionThe presence of a normal epithelium is fundamental for maintaining homeostasis in the nasal and paranasal sinuses. Here, we describe various aspects of the sinonasal epithelium and highlight the contributions of epithelial dysfunction to CRS pathogenesis. Our review provides sound evidence of the need for in-depth study of the pathophysiological alterations of this disease and for the development of novel epithelium-targeting alternative treatments

PRISMA 2020 checklist.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div

The funnel plot of anxiety score.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div

PRISMA flow diagram.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div

Database and search strategies.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div

Excluded literature and reasons.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div

The funnel plot of LOS.

ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg’s test, Egger’s test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.</div