Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY BMC Rheumatology Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z
Annik Steimer, Mike O Becker
{"title":"Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Annik Steimer, Mike O Becker","doi":"10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes \"regression of fibrosis,\" \"freedom from ureteric stents\" and \"relapse rate,\" and the secondary outcome \"clinical improvement.\" The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome \"improvement in renal function.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes \"regression of fibrosis,\" \"freedom from ureteric stent\" and \"clinical improvement\" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes \"regression of fibrosis\" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), \"freedom from ureteric stent\" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), \"relapse rate\" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and \"clinical improvement\" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Considering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.</p>","PeriodicalId":9150,"journal":{"name":"BMC Rheumatology","volume":"9 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stents" and "relapse rate," and the secondary outcome "clinical improvement." The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome "improvement in renal function."

Results: The search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stent" and "clinical improvement" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes "regression of fibrosis" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), "freedom from ureteric stent" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), "relapse rate" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and "clinical improvement" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).

Conclusions: Considering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Rheumatology
BMC Rheumatology Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Between uncertainty and destiny: the patient journey in axial spondyloarthritis care from the perspectives of patients and their relatives. Exploring drug utilization patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis in Colombia: a retrospective claims database study. Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Understanding the pros and cons of spine surgery for ankylosing spondylitis: experience from a single institution study. A rare intersection: squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil and the anti-TIF1 syndrome masquerade.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1