Ashish Immanuel Vaska, Zachary Munn, Sonal Nagra, Timothy Hugh Barker
{"title":"中低收入国家使用低成本网片与手术网片进行疝成形术的比较:系统性审查方案。","authors":"Ashish Immanuel Vaska, Zachary Munn, Sonal Nagra, Timothy Hugh Barker","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to assess the differences in surgical outcomes between hernioplasty using low-cost mesh and surgical mesh in adults undergoing elective hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of untreated mosquito netting in inguinal hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries has been well described in the literature, with two recent limited systematic reviews finding equivalent postoperative surgical outcomes. This comprehensive review, across a wider set of databases and gray literature, will assess a broader set of outcomes including patient and surgeon preference and sterility, report more granular complication outcomes, and include other low-cost mesh alternatives such as resterilized surgical mesh and indigenous products, alongside mosquito net mesh.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Adult patients undergoing elective inguinal hernioplasty with mesh in low- and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) and gray literature databases and trial registers will be searched for experimental studies, either randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, comparing hernioplasty with surgical mesh versus low-cost mesh, published in any language from 2000 to the present. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature search, screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text studies for inclusion, assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and extract data using a custom extraction tool. Synthesis will involve pooling for statistical meta-analysis with either a random-effects or fixed-effects model, as appropriate, and where this is not possible, findings will be presented in narrative form.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42019136028.</p>","PeriodicalId":73539,"journal":{"name":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hernioplasty using low-cost mesh compared to surgical mesh in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.\",\"authors\":\"Ashish Immanuel Vaska, Zachary Munn, Sonal Nagra, Timothy Hugh Barker\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to assess the differences in surgical outcomes between hernioplasty using low-cost mesh and surgical mesh in adults undergoing elective hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of untreated mosquito netting in inguinal hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries has been well described in the literature, with two recent limited systematic reviews finding equivalent postoperative surgical outcomes. This comprehensive review, across a wider set of databases and gray literature, will assess a broader set of outcomes including patient and surgeon preference and sterility, report more granular complication outcomes, and include other low-cost mesh alternatives such as resterilized surgical mesh and indigenous products, alongside mosquito net mesh.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Adult patients undergoing elective inguinal hernioplasty with mesh in low- and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) and gray literature databases and trial registers will be searched for experimental studies, either randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, comparing hernioplasty with surgical mesh versus low-cost mesh, published in any language from 2000 to the present. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature search, screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text studies for inclusion, assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and extract data using a custom extraction tool. Synthesis will involve pooling for statistical meta-analysis with either a random-effects or fixed-effects model, as appropriate, and where this is not possible, findings will be presented in narrative form.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42019136028.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的: 本综述旨在评估在低收入和中等收入国家接受选择性疝成形术的成人中,使用低成本网片和手术网片的手术效果差异:本综述旨在评估在低收入和中等收入国家接受选择性疝成形术的成人中,使用低成本蚊帐和手术蚊帐进行疝成形术的手术效果差异:在低收入和中等收入国家,使用未经处理的蚊帐进行腹股沟疝成形术的情况在文献中已有详细描述,最近两篇有限的系统性综述发现术后手术效果相当。本综合综述涉及更广泛的数据库和灰色文献,将评估更广泛的结果,包括患者和外科医生的偏好和无菌性,报告更详细的并发症结果,并包括其他低成本的网片替代品,如重新消毒的手术网片和本土产品,以及蚊帐网片:纳入标准:在低收入和中等收入国家接受使用网片的选择性腹股沟疝成形术的成年患者:将检索电子文献数据库(PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆)、灰色文献数据库和试验登记册,查找 2000 年至今以任何语言发表的比较使用手术网片和低成本网片进行疝成形术的随机或准随机对照试验研究。两名独立审稿人将进行文献检索、筛选标题和摘要、评估研究全文是否纳入、使用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 工具评估方法学质量,并使用自定义提取工具提取数据。综述将酌情使用随机效应或固定效应模型进行汇总统计荟萃分析,如果无法使用随机效应或固定效应模型,研究结果将以叙述形式呈现:系统综述注册编号:PREMCOCRD42019136028。
Hernioplasty using low-cost mesh compared to surgical mesh in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.
Objective: This review aims to assess the differences in surgical outcomes between hernioplasty using low-cost mesh and surgical mesh in adults undergoing elective hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries.
Introduction: The use of untreated mosquito netting in inguinal hernioplasty in low- and middle-income countries has been well described in the literature, with two recent limited systematic reviews finding equivalent postoperative surgical outcomes. This comprehensive review, across a wider set of databases and gray literature, will assess a broader set of outcomes including patient and surgeon preference and sterility, report more granular complication outcomes, and include other low-cost mesh alternatives such as resterilized surgical mesh and indigenous products, alongside mosquito net mesh.
Inclusion criteria: Adult patients undergoing elective inguinal hernioplasty with mesh in low- and middle-income countries.
Methods: Electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) and gray literature databases and trial registers will be searched for experimental studies, either randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, comparing hernioplasty with surgical mesh versus low-cost mesh, published in any language from 2000 to the present. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature search, screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text studies for inclusion, assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and extract data using a custom extraction tool. Synthesis will involve pooling for statistical meta-analysis with either a random-effects or fixed-effects model, as appropriate, and where this is not possible, findings will be presented in narrative form.