比较无并发症阑尾炎非手术治疗与手术治疗的荟萃分析和试验序列分析:重点关注随机对照试验

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE World Journal of Emergency Surgery Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6
Francesco Brucchi, Greta Bracchetti, Paola Fugazzola, Jacopo Viganò, Claudia Filisetti, Luca Ansaloni, Francesca Dal Mas, Lorenzo Cobianchi, Piergiorgio Danelli
{"title":"比较无并发症阑尾炎非手术治疗与手术治疗的荟萃分析和试验序列分析:重点关注随机对照试验","authors":"Francesco Brucchi, Greta Bracchetti, Paola Fugazzola, Jacopo Viganò, Claudia Filisetti, Luca Ansaloni, Francesca Dal Mas, Lorenzo Cobianchi, Piergiorgio Danelli","doi":"10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs. Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61—1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference − 0.58 days 95% confidence interval − 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence. As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing nonoperative versus operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: a focus on randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Brucchi, Greta Bracchetti, Paola Fugazzola, Jacopo Viganò, Claudia Filisetti, Luca Ansaloni, Francesca Dal Mas, Lorenzo Cobianchi, Piergiorgio Danelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs. Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61—1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference − 0.58 days 95% confidence interval − 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence. As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,比较成人无并发症急性阑尾炎患者的保守治疗和手术治疗。根据系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行了系统性文献综述。我们在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 CENTRAL 中进行了全面检索。我们只纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)。排除了涉及复杂性阑尾炎患者或儿童的研究。考虑的变量如下:治疗并发症、索引入院时和随访一年时无并发症治疗成功率、住院时间(LOS)、生活质量(QoL)和费用。研究共纳入了 8 项 RCT,共有 3213 人参与(1615 人接受抗生素治疗/1598 人接受阑尾切除术)。两种治疗方法在并发症发生率方面没有明显差异(RR = 0.66;95% CI 0.61-1.04,P = 0.07,I2 = 69%)。与阑尾切除术相比,抗生素的疗效较低(RR = 0.80;95% CI 0.71 至 0.90,P < 0.00001,I2 = 87%),1 年后,837 名参与者中有 540 人成功(64.6%,RR = 0.69,95% 置信区间 0.61 至 0.77,P < 0.00001,I2 = 81%)。LOS 没有差异(平均差异 - 0.58 天,95% 置信区间 - 1.59 至 0.43,p = 0.26,I2 = 99%)。试验顺序分析表明,就三个主要结果而言,即将进行的研究性试验不可能显著改变现有的证据体系。随着更多大规模试验的开展,抗生素治疗被证明比手术治疗安全、便宜,但效果也较差。为了确保在充分知情的情况下做出决定,还需要进一步研究患者的偏好和生活质量。
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
A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing nonoperative versus operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: a focus on randomized controlled trials
The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs. Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61—1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference − 0.58 days 95% confidence interval − 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence. As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.
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
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
期刊最新文献
Prophylactic PICO◊ dressing shortens wound dressing requirements post emergency laparotomy (EL-PICO◊ trial) A new technology for medical and surgical data organisation: the WSES-WJES Decentralised Knowledge Graph Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) enhances hemodynamic stability decreasing analgesic requirements in surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) Ultra minimally invasive surgical stabilization of Rib fractures (uMI-SSRF): reduction and fixation techniques to minimize the surgical wound Ultrasonic dissection versus electrocautery dissection in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a randomized controlled trial (SONOCHOL-trial)
×
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