乳房缩小术中的引流管:不使用引流管的建议有多好?

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Aesthetic Surgery Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1093/asj/sjae116
Tara Behroozian, Caroline Hircock, Emily Dunn, Achilles Thoma
{"title":"乳房缩小术中的引流管:不使用引流管的建议有多好?","authors":"Tara Behroozian, Caroline Hircock, Emily Dunn, Achilles Thoma","doi":"10.1093/asj/sjae116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A clinical practice guideline (CPG) from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended not to use drains in breast reduction. This CPG was based on 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this review was to double-check the methodological quality of the 3 RCTs. These RCTs were critically appraised using: (1) the \"User's Guide to the Surgical Literature\" checklist to critically appraise the methodological quality, (2) the CONSORT guidelines for reporting quality, and (3) the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for risk of bias. Weaknesses were identified in all assessments for the 3 RCTs. Items with the poorest adherence in the \"User's Guide\" included: \"Were patients stratified?,\" \"Was follow-up complete?,\" and \"Were all clinically important outcomes considered?\" The overall adherence to the CONSORT reporting checklist across all 3 studies was moderate with 40.0%, 62.1%, and 48.3% adherence. All 3 RCTs had a similar low to moderate risk of bias, with no areas with a high risk of bias. None of the studies took into consideration a single critical outcome (such as major hematoma) and the outcome's minimally important difference as the basis for the sample size and power calculation of the study. All 3 RCTs additionally lacked clear reporting of treatment effect sizes or precision of estimates. Our re-examination of the evidence questions the recommendation of the CPG. We believe that the recommendation should have been: \"We remain uncertain whether drains in breast reduction have a salutary effect.\" As such, we recommend that a methodologically robust RCT be conducted to resolve the question of whether drains should be used in breast reduction.</p>","PeriodicalId":7728,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1179-1185"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474604/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drains in Breast Reduction: How Good Is the Recommendation Not to Use Them?\",\"authors\":\"Tara Behroozian, Caroline Hircock, Emily Dunn, Achilles Thoma\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/asj/sjae116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A clinical practice guideline (CPG) from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended not to use drains in breast reduction. This CPG was based on 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this review was to double-check the methodological quality of the 3 RCTs. These RCTs were critically appraised using: (1) the \\\"User's Guide to the Surgical Literature\\\" checklist to critically appraise the methodological quality, (2) the CONSORT guidelines for reporting quality, and (3) the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for risk of bias. Weaknesses were identified in all assessments for the 3 RCTs. Items with the poorest adherence in the \\\"User's Guide\\\" included: \\\"Were patients stratified?,\\\" \\\"Was follow-up complete?,\\\" and \\\"Were all clinically important outcomes considered?\\\" The overall adherence to the CONSORT reporting checklist across all 3 studies was moderate with 40.0%, 62.1%, and 48.3% adherence. All 3 RCTs had a similar low to moderate risk of bias, with no areas with a high risk of bias. None of the studies took into consideration a single critical outcome (such as major hematoma) and the outcome's minimally important difference as the basis for the sample size and power calculation of the study. All 3 RCTs additionally lacked clear reporting of treatment effect sizes or precision of estimates. Our re-examination of the evidence questions the recommendation of the CPG. We believe that the recommendation should have been: \\\"We remain uncertain whether drains in breast reduction have a salutary effect.\\\" As such, we recommend that a methodologically robust RCT be conducted to resolve the question of whether drains should be used in breast reduction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aesthetic Surgery Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1179-1185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474604/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aesthetic Surgery Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae116\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Surgery Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae116","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床实践指南(CPG)建议在乳房缩小术中不要使用引流管。该临床实践指南基于 3 项随机对照试验 (RCT)。本综述的目的是再次检查这 3 项随机对照试验的方法学质量。对这些 RCT 进行严格评估时使用了 a) RCT 方法学质量评估用户指南;b) CONSORT 报告质量指南;c) Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2 (RoB 2)。在对三项 RCT 的所有评估中都发现了不足之处。在 RCT 用户指南中遵守情况最差的项目包括"是否对患者进行了分层?"、"随访是否完整?"和 "是否考虑了所有临床重要结果?所有研究对 CONSORT 报告核对表的总体遵守程度为中等,遵守率分别为 40.0%、62.1% 和 48.3%。所有 3 项研究的偏倚风险均为低至中度,没有高偏倚风险的领域。没有一项研究将单一关键结果(如主要血肿)和结果的最小重要差异作为样本量和研究功率计算的基础。此外,所有三项研究都没有明确报告治疗效果大小或估计值的精确度。我们对证据的重新审查对 CPG 的建议提出了质疑。我们认为,该建议应该是 "我们仍然不确定乳房缩小术中的引流管是否具有治疗效果"。因此,我们建议进行方法可靠的研究性试验来回答这个问题。
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
Drains in Breast Reduction: How Good Is the Recommendation Not to Use Them?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommended not to use drains in breast reduction. This CPG was based on 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this review was to double-check the methodological quality of the 3 RCTs. These RCTs were critically appraised using: (1) the "User's Guide to the Surgical Literature" checklist to critically appraise the methodological quality, (2) the CONSORT guidelines for reporting quality, and (3) the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for risk of bias. Weaknesses were identified in all assessments for the 3 RCTs. Items with the poorest adherence in the "User's Guide" included: "Were patients stratified?," "Was follow-up complete?," and "Were all clinically important outcomes considered?" The overall adherence to the CONSORT reporting checklist across all 3 studies was moderate with 40.0%, 62.1%, and 48.3% adherence. All 3 RCTs had a similar low to moderate risk of bias, with no areas with a high risk of bias. None of the studies took into consideration a single critical outcome (such as major hematoma) and the outcome's minimally important difference as the basis for the sample size and power calculation of the study. All 3 RCTs additionally lacked clear reporting of treatment effect sizes or precision of estimates. Our re-examination of the evidence questions the recommendation of the CPG. We believe that the recommendation should have been: "We remain uncertain whether drains in breast reduction have a salutary effect." As such, we recommend that a methodologically robust RCT be conducted to resolve the question of whether drains should be used in breast reduction.

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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
20.70%
发文量
309
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Surgery Journal is a peer-reviewed international journal focusing on scientific developments and clinical techniques in aesthetic surgery. The official publication of The Aesthetic Society, ASJ is also the official English-language journal of many major international societies of plastic, aesthetic and reconstructive surgery representing South America, Central America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also the official journal of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and Safety of RelabotulinumtoxinA, a New Ready-to-Use Liquid Formulation Botulinum Toxin: Results From the READY-1 Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial in Glabellar Lines. IL-9 Is a Biomarker of BIA-ALCL Detected Rapidly by Lateral Flow Assay. Long-term Implications of Cosmetic Breast Surgeries on Subsequent Breast Reconstruction. The Impact of Vaginoplasty on Female and Male Sexual Function and Satisfaction. An In-Depth Analysis of 1370 Consecutive Abdominoplasties: Fascial Plication Increases Risk of Venous Thromboembolism, and Scoring for Plication Improves the Caprini Risk Assessment Model.
×
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