妊娠创伤临床实践指南:系统综述

M. De Vito, Giulia Capannolo, Sara Alameddine, R. Fiorito, A. Lena, L. Patrizi, Francesco D’ Antonio, G. Rizzo
{"title":"妊娠创伤临床实践指南:系统综述","authors":"M. De Vito, Giulia Capannolo, Sara Alameddine, R. Fiorito, A. Lena, L. Patrizi, Francesco D’ Antonio, G. Rizzo","doi":"10.1080/14767058.2022.2078190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose To objectively evaluate the methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity robustness of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of trauma in pregnancy. Materials and methods Pubmed, Google Scholar, UpToDate, and Scopus Database were searched. The risk of bias and quality assessment of the included CPGs were performed using “The Appraisal Of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II)” tool. The following points relating to the management of trauma during pregnancy were addressed: quality of evidence assessment, classification of recommendations, main causes of trauma in pregnancy, importance of correct use of seat belts, ultrasound scans and/or pregnancy test in every female of reproductive age, description of physiological changes in pregnancy, classification in primary and secondary survey, primary survey based on ABCD Approach, fetus viable based on the weeks, radiographic studies for maternal evaluation, duration of fetal monitoring, use of anti-D immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant trauma patients, description of dose of RhD-Ig, the way to define gestational age if it was undetermined, descriptions of obstetrical complications, use of tetanus vaccination, and timing to perimortem cesarean section (CS). Results Six CPGs were included. Quality of evidence assessment was described in 16.7% of CPGs (1/6), while it was not reported in 83.3% (5/6). Classification of recommendations was reported in 50% (3/3) of the CPGs. Motor vehicle crash was reported as the main cause of trauma in pregnancy in all the CPGs included in the present review, despite that the importance of a correct use of seat belts was described only in the 50% (3/6). Definition of fetal viability was also different among the included CPGs; in 50% (3/6) defined a fetus viable when it from 23 weeks, 33.3% (2/6) from 24 weeks, and 16.7% (1/6) from 20 weeks of gestation. Regarding the type of fetal monitoring, 33.3% (2/6) CPGs recommended CTG assessment at least every 4 h, 16.7% (1/6) at least every 6 h, 33.3% for 24 h if there are not reassuring signs and 16.7% (1/6) did not specify the duration of monitoring. Recommendations about the use of anti-D-immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant were also heterogeneous: 50% (3/6) of the CPGs suggested administration in all rhesus-D-negative pregnant women, 16.7% (1/6) only according to gestational age at trauma or in case of significant abdominal trauma, and 16.7% (1/6) only in case of positive Kleihauer test while 16.7% (1/6) did not specify it. Administration of tetanus vaccination was suggested in in 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs. Finally, there were different descriptions of timing to perimortem CS: 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs claims to do CS no later than 4 min, 50% (3/6) no later than 5 min, and 16.7% (1/6) does not describe timing for CS. The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 69%. Only three CPGs scored more than 60% and revealed a consensus agreement between the reviewers on recommending the use of these CPGs. Conclusion There is clinical heterogeneity in some of the most relevant aspects of the management of pregnant women with trauma. The findings from this systematic review highlight the need for up to date and shared guidelines promoted by the main body societies in order make management of pregnant women with trauma homogenous.","PeriodicalId":22921,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trauma in pregnancy clinical practice guidelines: systematic review\",\"authors\":\"M. De Vito, Giulia Capannolo, Sara Alameddine, R. Fiorito, A. Lena, L. Patrizi, Francesco D’ Antonio, G. Rizzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14767058.2022.2078190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose To objectively evaluate the methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity robustness of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of trauma in pregnancy. Materials and methods Pubmed, Google Scholar, UpToDate, and Scopus Database were searched. The risk of bias and quality assessment of the included CPGs were performed using “The Appraisal Of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II)” tool. The following points relating to the management of trauma during pregnancy were addressed: quality of evidence assessment, classification of recommendations, main causes of trauma in pregnancy, importance of correct use of seat belts, ultrasound scans and/or pregnancy test in every female of reproductive age, description of physiological changes in pregnancy, classification in primary and secondary survey, primary survey based on ABCD Approach, fetus viable based on the weeks, radiographic studies for maternal evaluation, duration of fetal monitoring, use of anti-D immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant trauma patients, description of dose of RhD-Ig, the way to define gestational age if it was undetermined, descriptions of obstetrical complications, use of tetanus vaccination, and timing to perimortem cesarean section (CS). Results Six CPGs were included. Quality of evidence assessment was described in 16.7% of CPGs (1/6), while it was not reported in 83.3% (5/6). Classification of recommendations was reported in 50% (3/3) of the CPGs. Motor vehicle crash was reported as the main cause of trauma in pregnancy in all the CPGs included in the present review, despite that the importance of a correct use of seat belts was described only in the 50% (3/6). Definition of fetal viability was also different among the included CPGs; in 50% (3/6) defined a fetus viable when it from 23 weeks, 33.3% (2/6) from 24 weeks, and 16.7% (1/6) from 20 weeks of gestation. Regarding the type of fetal monitoring, 33.3% (2/6) CPGs recommended CTG assessment at least every 4 h, 16.7% (1/6) at least every 6 h, 33.3% for 24 h if there are not reassuring signs and 16.7% (1/6) did not specify the duration of monitoring. Recommendations about the use of anti-D-immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant were also heterogeneous: 50% (3/6) of the CPGs suggested administration in all rhesus-D-negative pregnant women, 16.7% (1/6) only according to gestational age at trauma or in case of significant abdominal trauma, and 16.7% (1/6) only in case of positive Kleihauer test while 16.7% (1/6) did not specify it. Administration of tetanus vaccination was suggested in in 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs. Finally, there were different descriptions of timing to perimortem CS: 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs claims to do CS no later than 4 min, 50% (3/6) no later than 5 min, and 16.7% (1/6) does not describe timing for CS. The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 69%. Only three CPGs scored more than 60% and revealed a consensus agreement between the reviewers on recommending the use of these CPGs. Conclusion There is clinical heterogeneity in some of the most relevant aspects of the management of pregnant women with trauma. The findings from this systematic review highlight the need for up to date and shared guidelines promoted by the main body societies in order make management of pregnant women with trauma homogenous.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2022.2078190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2022.2078190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的客观评价已出版的临床实践指南(CPGs)妊娠创伤处理的方法学质量和临床异质性稳健性。检索Pubmed、Google Scholar、UpToDate、Scopus数据库。使用“研究与评价指南评估(AGREE II)”工具对纳入的cpg进行偏倚风险和质量评估。讨论了下列与怀孕期间创伤处理有关的问题:证据质量评估、建议分类、孕期创伤的主要原因、正确使用安全带的重要性、每个育龄女性的超声扫描和/或妊娠试验、孕期生理变化的描述、一级和二级调查的分类、基于ABCD方法的一级调查、基于周的胎儿存活率、用于母体评估的x线检查、胎儿监测的持续时间。抗d免疫球蛋白在恒河猴d阴性妊娠创伤患者中的使用,RhD-Ig剂量描述,未确定胎龄的定义方法,产科并发症描述,破伤风疫苗的使用,以及剖宫产术(CS)的时机。结果共纳入6个cpg。16.7%的cpg(1/6)报告了证据质量评估,83.3%(5/6)未报告证据质量评估。50%(3/3)的cpg报告了建议分类。尽管只有50%(3/6)的孕妇提到了正确使用安全带的重要性,但在本综述中所有的CPGs中,机动车碰撞被报道为妊娠期创伤的主要原因。所纳入的cpg对胎儿生存能力的定义也不同;50%(3/6)的人认为23周为可存活胎儿,33.3%(2/6)的人认为24周为可存活胎儿,16.7%(1/6)的人认为20周为可存活胎儿。关于胎儿监测的类型,33.3%(2/6)的cpg建议至少每4小时评估一次CTG, 16.7%(1/6)的cpg建议至少每6小时评估一次CTG, 33.3%(1/6)的cpg建议如果没有令人放心的体征,则建议24小时评估一次CTG, 16.7%(1/6)的cpg未规定监测的持续时间。关于抗d免疫球蛋白在rh - d阴性孕妇中的使用的建议也存在差异:50%(3/6)的CPGs建议在所有rh - d阴性孕妇中使用抗d免疫球蛋白,16.7%(1/6)仅根据创伤时的胎龄或严重腹部创伤,16.7%(1/6)仅在Kleihauer试验阳性的情况下使用,16.7%(1/6)未明确说明。33.3%(2/6)的CPGs建议接种破伤风疫苗。最后,对死前CS的时间有不同的描述:33.3%(2/6)的cpg声称不迟于4分钟进行CS, 50%(3/6)不迟于5分钟,16.7%(1/6)没有描述CS的时间。第一次全面评估(OA1)的AGREE II标准化领域得分的平均值为69%。只有三个cpg评分超过60%,并且显示了审稿人在推荐使用这些cpg方面的共识。结论创伤孕妇的处理在一些最相关的方面存在临床异质性。这一系统综述的结果强调,需要由主要团体推动的最新和共享的指南,以便使创伤孕妇的管理同质化。
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
Trauma in pregnancy clinical practice guidelines: systematic review
Abstract Purpose To objectively evaluate the methodological quality and clinical heterogeneity robustness of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on the management of trauma in pregnancy. Materials and methods Pubmed, Google Scholar, UpToDate, and Scopus Database were searched. The risk of bias and quality assessment of the included CPGs were performed using “The Appraisal Of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II)” tool. The following points relating to the management of trauma during pregnancy were addressed: quality of evidence assessment, classification of recommendations, main causes of trauma in pregnancy, importance of correct use of seat belts, ultrasound scans and/or pregnancy test in every female of reproductive age, description of physiological changes in pregnancy, classification in primary and secondary survey, primary survey based on ABCD Approach, fetus viable based on the weeks, radiographic studies for maternal evaluation, duration of fetal monitoring, use of anti-D immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant trauma patients, description of dose of RhD-Ig, the way to define gestational age if it was undetermined, descriptions of obstetrical complications, use of tetanus vaccination, and timing to perimortem cesarean section (CS). Results Six CPGs were included. Quality of evidence assessment was described in 16.7% of CPGs (1/6), while it was not reported in 83.3% (5/6). Classification of recommendations was reported in 50% (3/3) of the CPGs. Motor vehicle crash was reported as the main cause of trauma in pregnancy in all the CPGs included in the present review, despite that the importance of a correct use of seat belts was described only in the 50% (3/6). Definition of fetal viability was also different among the included CPGs; in 50% (3/6) defined a fetus viable when it from 23 weeks, 33.3% (2/6) from 24 weeks, and 16.7% (1/6) from 20 weeks of gestation. Regarding the type of fetal monitoring, 33.3% (2/6) CPGs recommended CTG assessment at least every 4 h, 16.7% (1/6) at least every 6 h, 33.3% for 24 h if there are not reassuring signs and 16.7% (1/6) did not specify the duration of monitoring. Recommendations about the use of anti-D-immunoglobulin in rhesus-D-negative pregnant were also heterogeneous: 50% (3/6) of the CPGs suggested administration in all rhesus-D-negative pregnant women, 16.7% (1/6) only according to gestational age at trauma or in case of significant abdominal trauma, and 16.7% (1/6) only in case of positive Kleihauer test while 16.7% (1/6) did not specify it. Administration of tetanus vaccination was suggested in in 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs. Finally, there were different descriptions of timing to perimortem CS: 33.3% (2/6) of CPGs claims to do CS no later than 4 min, 50% (3/6) no later than 5 min, and 16.7% (1/6) does not describe timing for CS. The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 69%. Only three CPGs scored more than 60% and revealed a consensus agreement between the reviewers on recommending the use of these CPGs. Conclusion There is clinical heterogeneity in some of the most relevant aspects of the management of pregnant women with trauma. The findings from this systematic review highlight the need for up to date and shared guidelines promoted by the main body societies in order make management of pregnant women with trauma homogenous.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of specialty training and physician attitudes on fetal cardiac counseling Fetoplacental unit involvement in uric acid production in women with severe preeclampsia: a prospective case control pilot study. Causal association of sex hormone-binding globulin on gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study Targeted metabolomic analysis of early-trimester serum identifies potential mechanisms for late-onset preeclampsia Statement of retraction: effect of daily consumption of probiotic yoghurt on lipid profiles in pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical 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