优化剖腹产效果的循证外科手术:系统综述。

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-05-19 eCollection Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632
Celina Gialdini, Monica Chamillard, Virginia Diaz, Julia Pasquale, Shakila Thangaratinam, Edgardo Abalos, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran
{"title":"优化剖腹产效果的循证外科手术:系统综述。","authors":"Celina Gialdini, Monica Chamillard, Virginia Diaz, Julia Pasquale, Shakila Thangaratinam, Edgardo Abalos, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11134562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Celina Gialdini, Monica Chamillard, Virginia Diaz, Julia Pasquale, Shakila Thangaratinam, Edgardo Abalos, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11134562/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:剖腹产手术(CS)是全世界实施最多的大型手术。用于剖腹产的手术技术千差万别,也没有国际公认的标准化。我们对随机对照试验(RCT)的系统综述(SR)进行了概述,以总结与 CS 相关的手术技术或程序的证据:方法:我们在 Cochrane 系统综述数据库、PubMed、EMBASE、Lilacs 和 CINAHL 中进行了检索,检索时间从数据库建立之初到 2024 年 1 月 31 日,没有日期或语言限制。AMSTAR 2 和 GRADE 分别用于评估系统综述的方法学质量和结果层面的证据确定性。我们根据效果估计值和证据的确定性将每种手术-结果对分为八类。综述已在 PROSPERO(CRD 42023208306)上注册:分析包括 2004-2024 年间发表的 38 篇 SR(16 篇 Cochrane,22 篇非 Cochrane),涉及 628 项 RCT,共有 190349 人参与。大多数综述的质量较低或极低(AMSTAR 2)。研究报告提出了 345 项手术与结果的比较(237 项手术与手术,108 项手术与无治疗/安慰剂)。其中 256 项比较证据不足或不确定,40 项比较有明确的获益证据,17 项比较可能获益,13 项比较无效果差异,14 项比较有明确的危害证据,5 项比较可能造成危害。我们没有发现 7 项预定义程序的研究结果。使用洗必泰清洁皮肤、基于 Joel-Cohen 的腹部切口、钝性剥离和头尾部扩张的子宫切口、脐带牵引提取胎盘、产前 CS 中的手动宫颈扩张、更换手套、子宫缝合时使用铬合金肠线、不闭合腹膜、闭合皮下组织和负压伤口治疗是对相关结果有益的程序:目前的证据表明,几种 CS 手术方法可改善预后,但也显示出许多常用方法缺乏证据或证据不确定。目前迫切需要以证据为基础的指南来规范 CS 技术,并进行试验以填补现有的知识空白:联合国开发计划署(UNDP)-人口基金(UNFPA)-儿童基金会(UNICEF)-世界卫生组织(WHO)-世界银行人类生殖研究、发展和研究培训特别计划(HRP),该计划由世界卫生组织(WHO)共同赞助执行。
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
Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS.

Methods: Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).

Findings: The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes.

Interpretation: Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps.

Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

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
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors associated with post-tuberculosis sequelae: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CVN424, a GPR6 inverse agonist, for Parkinson's disease and motor fluctuations: a double-blind, randomized, phase 2 trial. Diagnostic performance of deep learning for infectious keratitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut microbiota in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an individual based analysis of publicly available data. The global burden of enteric fever, 2017-2021: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2021.
×
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