Background: Numerous individual studies have investigated the diagnostic value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), but the conclusions remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the value of EBV-DNA, EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection in the diagnosis of NPC. Methods: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019145532. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese data libraries (Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM) were searched up to January 2019. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood, negative likelihood, and diagnostic odds ratios were conducted in this meta-analysis. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves evaluated the test-performance global summary. Publication bias was examined by Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test. Results: Forty-seven studies with 8382 NPC patients (NPC group) and 15,089 individuals without NPC (Control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood (+ LR), negative likelihood (-LR), DOR and AUC of EBV-DNA in diagnosis of NPC were: 0.76 (95% CI 0.73–0.77), 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.97), 14.66 (95% CI 9.97–21.55), 0.19 (95% CI 0.13–0.28), 84 (95% CI 50.45–139.88), 0.96 (SE: 0.001), and 0.55 (95% CI 0.54–0.57), 0.96 (95% CI 0.96–0.97), 12.91 (95% CI 9.55–17.45), 0.35 (95% CI 0.29–0.43), 39.57 (95% CI 26.44–59.23), 0.94 (SE: 0.002) for the EA-IgA, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.85), 0.89 (95% CI 0.88–0.89), 6.73 (95% CI5.38–8.43), 0.17 (95% CI 0.12–0.23), 43.03 (95% CI 31.51–58.76), 0.93 (SE: 0.007) for the VCA-IgA, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.85–0.88), 0.87 (95% CI 0.88–0.90), 7.55 (95% CI 5.79–9.87), 0.16 (95% CI 0.13–0.19), 50.95 (95% CI 34.35–75.57), 0.94 (SE: 0.008) for the EBNA1-IgA, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.69–0.71), 0.94 (95% CI 0.94–0.95), 9.84 (95% CI 8.40–11.54), 0.25 (95% CI 0.21–0.31), 40.59 (95% CI 32.09–51.35), 0.95 (SE: 0.005) for the Rta-IgG. The EBV-DNA had larger AUC compared with other EBV-based antibodies (P < 0.05), while the difference between EA-IgA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusions: EBV-DNA, VCA-IgA, EBNA1-IgA and Rta-IgG detection have high accuracy in early diagnosis NPC. In addition, EBV-DNA detection has the higher diagnosis accuracy in NPC. On the other hand, EA-IgA is suitable for the diagnosis but not NPC screening.

Snoring is a common symptom of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) and has recently been considered for diagnosis of OSA. The goal of the current study was to systematically determine the accuracy of acoustic analysis of snoring in the diagnosis of OSA using a meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library database, and EMBASE were searched up to July 15, 2014. A systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy of acoustic analysis of snoring in the diagnosis of OSA were conducted. The median of apneahypopnea index threshold was 10 events/h, range: 5-15 or 10-15 if aforementioned suggestion is adopted. A total of seven studies with 273 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimates were as follows: sensitivity, 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82-93%); specificity, 81% (95% CI: 72-88%); positive likelihood ratio (PLR), 4.44 (95% CI: 2.39-8.27); negative likelihood ratio (NLR), 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.24); and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 32.18 (95% CI: 13.96-74.81). χ(2) values of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 2.37, 10.39, 12.57, 3.79, and 6.91 respectively (All p > 0.05). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the pooled estimates were stable and reliable. The results of publication bias were not significant (p = 0.30). Acoustic analysis of snoring is a relatively accurate but not a strong method for diagnosing OSA. There is an urgent need for rigorous studies involving large samples and single snore event tests with an efficacy criterion that reflects the particular features of snoring acoustics for OSA diagnosis.

The distribution of allergens may vary with different geographic areas, suggesting the importance of local epidemiological data to support evidence-based prevention and management of allergic diseases. We investigated the distribution of common allergens in allergic patients in Guangzhou, southern China.

Emerging biologics that selectively target key cytokines present a promising therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from severe, uncontrollable chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Despite the limited availability of registered biologics for CRSwNP treatment in China, the country is experiencing rapid development in this field. It is imperative to standardize the application of biologic agents in CRSwNP management in preparation for their future integration into the CRSwNP care pathway. The Rhinology Group, Chinese Society of Otorhinolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery; the Rhinology Group, Chinese Medical Doctor Association of Otorhinolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery; and the Nasal and Ocular Allergy Group, Chinese Society of Allergy have convened an expert panel consisting of principal investigators experienced in clinical trials of biologic treatment for CRSwNP. This expert panel was assembled to discuss the application of biologic agents in patients with CRSwNP in China. Additionally, the latest findings on the pathogenesis of CRSwNP, mechanisms of biologic agents, and efficacy and safety of biologic treatment in patients with CRSwNP were reviewed, with a special emphasis on research evidence from China. The expert panel reached a consensus on several critical issues, including criteria for the prescription, treatment course, and efficacy evaluation from a Chinese perspective. This position paper aims to guide Chinese physicians in the use of biologic agents for patients with CRSwNP. As our experience with biologic treatment continues to grow, this position paper will be further updated.