PP155 乳腺癌患者是否应避免同侧手臂静脉穿刺?证据快速回顾

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1017/s0266462323002568
Keng Ho Pwee
{"title":"PP155 乳腺癌患者是否应避免同侧手臂静脉穿刺?证据快速回顾","authors":"Keng Ho Pwee","doi":"10.1017/s0266462323002568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Introduction</span><p>This rapid review clarified the evidence supporting avoidance of venipuncture on the ipsilateral arm in breast cancer patients who have had sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node clearance (ALNC), as a preventive measure against lymphoedema.</p><span>Methods</span><p>A systematic search was carried out for systematic reviews with the following elements:</p><ul><li><p><span>•</span> Population – breast cancer patients who had SLNB or ALNC</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Intervention – avoidance of venipuncture in the ipsilateral arm</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Comparator –use of either arm for venipuncture</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Outcomes – risk of lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm</p></li></ul><p></p><p>Databases searched included PubMed (MEDLINE), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews were critically appraised with the AMSTAR2 instrument and the primary studies were extracted and tabulated in a narrative synthesis.</p><span>Results</span><p>Six reviews were included; none of the reviews self-identified as systematic reviews in their titles/abstracts. Four reviews did report methods, including systematic search strategies and describing studies in adequate detail. However, all reviews did not meet most criteria on the AMSTAR2 checklist. The reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. An evidence table was consequently drawn up of the primary studies included in the reviews as a narrative synthesis of the primary evidence base.</p><p>The primary evidence base comprised 12 observational studies – six prospective cohort or descriptive studies and 6 retrospective studies. These studies were inconsistent and inconclusive; studies that found an association or reported cases following ipsilateral venipuncture were subject to recall bias or other potential confounders. Guidelines or patient information recommending avoidance of ipsilateral venipuncture do so based on expert opinion rather than consistent findings from empirical studies.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>All reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. Review authors consistently recognized there was no strong basis for the prevalent recommendations to avoid ipsilateral venipuncture to prevent lymphoedema. Such recommendations lead to unnecessary measures that may be detrimental to patients. Stakeholders should reconsider advice to patients in the light of existing evidence and weigh up the uncertain benefits against potential harm to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PP155 Should Breast Cancer Patients Avoid Venipuncture In The Ipsilateral Arm? A Rapid Review Of The Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Keng Ho Pwee\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0266462323002568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Introduction</span><p>This rapid review clarified the evidence supporting avoidance of venipuncture on the ipsilateral arm in breast cancer patients who have had sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node clearance (ALNC), as a preventive measure against lymphoedema.</p><span>Methods</span><p>A systematic search was carried out for systematic reviews with the following elements:</p><ul><li><p><span>•</span> Population – breast cancer patients who had SLNB or ALNC</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Intervention – avoidance of venipuncture in the ipsilateral arm</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Comparator –use of either arm for venipuncture</p></li><li><p><span>•</span> Outcomes – risk of lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm</p></li></ul><p></p><p>Databases searched included PubMed (MEDLINE), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews were critically appraised with the AMSTAR2 instrument and the primary studies were extracted and tabulated in a narrative synthesis.</p><span>Results</span><p>Six reviews were included; none of the reviews self-identified as systematic reviews in their titles/abstracts. Four reviews did report methods, including systematic search strategies and describing studies in adequate detail. However, all reviews did not meet most criteria on the AMSTAR2 checklist. The reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. An evidence table was consequently drawn up of the primary studies included in the reviews as a narrative synthesis of the primary evidence base.</p><p>The primary evidence base comprised 12 observational studies – six prospective cohort or descriptive studies and 6 retrospective studies. These studies were inconsistent and inconclusive; studies that found an association or reported cases following ipsilateral venipuncture were subject to recall bias or other potential confounders. Guidelines or patient information recommending avoidance of ipsilateral venipuncture do so based on expert opinion rather than consistent findings from empirical studies.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>All reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. Review authors consistently recognized there was no strong basis for the prevalent recommendations to avoid ipsilateral venipuncture to prevent lymphoedema. Such recommendations lead to unnecessary measures that may be detrimental to patients. Stakeholders should reconsider advice to patients in the light of existing evidence and weigh up the uncertain benefits against potential harm to patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002568\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323002568","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项快速回顾澄清了证据,支持在前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)或腋窝淋巴结清除(ALNC)的乳腺癌患者中避免对同侧手臂进行静脉穿刺,作为预防淋巴水肿的措施。方法对系统综述进行系统检索,纳入以下要素:•人群- SLNB或ALNC的乳腺癌患者•干预-避免在同侧手臂进行静脉穿刺•比较者-使用任何一侧手臂进行静脉穿刺•结局-同侧手臂淋巴水肿的风险。检索的数据库包括PubMed (MEDLINE)、Epistemonikos和Cochrane系统综述数据库。用AMSTAR2仪器对纳入的综述进行了严格评价,并将主要研究提取出来,制成叙述综合表。结果共纳入6篇综述;没有一篇综述在其标题/摘要中自称为系统综述。四篇综述报告了方法,包括系统搜索策略和足够详细地描述研究。然而,所有的审查都没有达到AMSTAR2清单上的大多数标准。综述的结论是,避免静脉穿刺的证据基础是不一致的。因此,作为主要证据基础的叙述性综合,编制了一份证据表,列出了审查中包括的主要研究。主要证据基础包括12项观察性研究- 6项前瞻性队列或描述性研究和6项回顾性研究。这些研究是不一致和不确定的;发现与同侧静脉穿刺相关的研究或报告的病例容易受到回忆偏倚或其他潜在混杂因素的影响。建议避免同侧静脉穿刺的指南或患者信息是基于专家意见,而不是基于经验研究的一致发现。结论所有综述得出避免静脉穿刺的证据基础不一致。综述作者一致认为,避免同侧静脉穿刺以预防淋巴水肿的流行建议没有强有力的基础。这些建议会导致不必要的措施,可能对患者有害。利益相关者应根据现有证据重新考虑对患者的建议,并权衡不确定的益处与对患者的潜在伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
PP155 Should Breast Cancer Patients Avoid Venipuncture In The Ipsilateral Arm? A Rapid Review Of The Evidence
Introduction

This rapid review clarified the evidence supporting avoidance of venipuncture on the ipsilateral arm in breast cancer patients who have had sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node clearance (ALNC), as a preventive measure against lymphoedema.

Methods

A systematic search was carried out for systematic reviews with the following elements:

  • Population – breast cancer patients who had SLNB or ALNC

  • Intervention – avoidance of venipuncture in the ipsilateral arm

  • Comparator –use of either arm for venipuncture

  • Outcomes – risk of lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm

Databases searched included PubMed (MEDLINE), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews were critically appraised with the AMSTAR2 instrument and the primary studies were extracted and tabulated in a narrative synthesis.

Results

Six reviews were included; none of the reviews self-identified as systematic reviews in their titles/abstracts. Four reviews did report methods, including systematic search strategies and describing studies in adequate detail. However, all reviews did not meet most criteria on the AMSTAR2 checklist. The reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. An evidence table was consequently drawn up of the primary studies included in the reviews as a narrative synthesis of the primary evidence base.

The primary evidence base comprised 12 observational studies – six prospective cohort or descriptive studies and 6 retrospective studies. These studies were inconsistent and inconclusive; studies that found an association or reported cases following ipsilateral venipuncture were subject to recall bias or other potential confounders. Guidelines or patient information recommending avoidance of ipsilateral venipuncture do so based on expert opinion rather than consistent findings from empirical studies.

Conclusions

All reviews concluded that the evidence base for avoiding venipuncture was inconsistent. Review authors consistently recognized there was no strong basis for the prevalent recommendations to avoid ipsilateral venipuncture to prevent lymphoedema. Such recommendations lead to unnecessary measures that may be detrimental to patients. Stakeholders should reconsider advice to patients in the light of existing evidence and weigh up the uncertain benefits against potential harm to patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
期刊最新文献
Development of an MCDA Framework for Rare Disease Reimbursement Prioritization in Malaysia. Experiences of patient organizations' involvement in medicine appraisal and reimbursement processes in Finland - a qualitative study. PP78 Real-World Trends And Medical Costs Of Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation In Korea: A Nationwide, Population-Based Study Can requests for real-world evidence by the French HTA body be planned? An exhaustive retrospective case-control study of medicinal products appraisals from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.
×
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