孕期安全用药参考指南:系统回顾与比较分析。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s00228-024-03736-z
Xue-Feng Jiao, Panda Qiu, Zheyun Song, Xue Peng, Hailong Li, Linan Zeng, Lingli Zhang
{"title":"孕期安全用药参考指南:系统回顾与比较分析。","authors":"Xue-Feng Jiao, Panda Qiu, Zheyun Song, Xue Peng, Hailong Li, Linan Zeng, Lingli Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s00228-024-03736-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To comprehensively evaluate and compare all the available reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy, with the goal of determining the scientificity and reliability of these reference guides.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP database to comprehensively identify the available reference guides. Moreover, we selected 103 drugs based on relevant literatures, and compared the recommendations of each drug from different reference guides.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 available reference guides were identified. However, none of these reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence. Seven reference guides adopted expert consensus method to formulate pregnancy recommendations, while the rest reference guides did not report the formation method. Moreover, 77.7% of the selected drugs had inconsistent recommendations among different reference guides. In addition, the referenced human and animal studies for the same drug differed among different reference guides.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that current reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy are less scientific and reliable, and there are considerable discrepancies in recommendations from different reference guides concerning drug use during pregnancy. The reasons for the discrepancies in recommendations include ① the literature search in most reference guides was not comprehensive, ② none of the available reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence, and ③ the method adopted by current reference guides to formulate recommendations had obvious subjectivity and lacked of scientificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy: a systematic review and comparative analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xue-Feng Jiao, Panda Qiu, Zheyun Song, Xue Peng, Hailong Li, Linan Zeng, Lingli Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00228-024-03736-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To comprehensively evaluate and compare all the available reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy, with the goal of determining the scientificity and reliability of these reference guides.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP database to comprehensively identify the available reference guides. Moreover, we selected 103 drugs based on relevant literatures, and compared the recommendations of each drug from different reference guides.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 available reference guides were identified. However, none of these reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence. Seven reference guides adopted expert consensus method to formulate pregnancy recommendations, while the rest reference guides did not report the formation method. Moreover, 77.7% of the selected drugs had inconsistent recommendations among different reference guides. In addition, the referenced human and animal studies for the same drug differed among different reference guides.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that current reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy are less scientific and reliable, and there are considerable discrepancies in recommendations from different reference guides concerning drug use during pregnancy. The reasons for the discrepancies in recommendations include ① the literature search in most reference guides was not comprehensive, ② none of the available reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence, and ③ the method adopted by current reference guides to formulate recommendations had obvious subjectivity and lacked of scientificity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03736-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03736-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:全面评估和比较现有的孕期安全用药参考指南,以确定这些参考指南的科学性和可靠性:方法:我们检索了PubMed、EMbase、CNKI、万方数据库和VIP数据库,以全面确定现有的参考指南。此外,我们还根据相关文献选取了 103 种药物,并比较了不同参考指南对每种药物的推荐:结果:共发现了 14 种可用的参考指南。然而,这些参考指南均未对原始研究的偏倚风险或当前证据的质量进行评估。七份参考指南采用专家共识法制定妊娠建议,其余参考指南未报告制定方法。此外,77.7% 的选定药物在不同参考指南中的建议不一致。此外,不同参考指南对同一种药物所参考的人体和动物研究也不尽相同:我们的研究结果表明,目前关于孕期安全用药的参考指南的科学性和可靠性较低,不同参考指南关于孕期用药的建议存在很大差异。造成建议差异的原因包括:①大多数参考指南的文献检索不全面;②现有参考指南均未对原始研究的偏倚风险或现有证据的质量进行评估;③现有参考指南制定建议的方法具有明显的主观性,缺乏科学性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy: a systematic review and comparative analysis.

Purpose: To comprehensively evaluate and compare all the available reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy, with the goal of determining the scientificity and reliability of these reference guides.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, and VIP database to comprehensively identify the available reference guides. Moreover, we selected 103 drugs based on relevant literatures, and compared the recommendations of each drug from different reference guides.

Results: A total of 14 available reference guides were identified. However, none of these reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence. Seven reference guides adopted expert consensus method to formulate pregnancy recommendations, while the rest reference guides did not report the formation method. Moreover, 77.7% of the selected drugs had inconsistent recommendations among different reference guides. In addition, the referenced human and animal studies for the same drug differed among different reference guides.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that current reference guides for the safe use of drugs during pregnancy are less scientific and reliable, and there are considerable discrepancies in recommendations from different reference guides concerning drug use during pregnancy. The reasons for the discrepancies in recommendations include ① the literature search in most reference guides was not comprehensive, ② none of the available reference guides assessed the risk of bias of original studies or the quality of current evidence, and ③ the method adopted by current reference guides to formulate recommendations had obvious subjectivity and lacked of scientificity.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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