Suppr超能文献

儿童哮喘书面行动计划。

Written action plans for asthma in children.

作者信息

Bhogal S, Zemek R, Ducharme F M

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19(3):CD005306. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005306.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

While all asthma consensus statements recommend the use of written action plan (WAP) as a central part of asthma management, a recent systematic review of randomised trials highlighted the paucity of trials where the only difference between groups was the provision or not of a written action plan.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were firstly to evaluate the independent effect of providing versus not providing a written action plan in children and adolescents with asthma, and secondly to compare the effect of different written action plans.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (November 2004), which is derived from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, as well as handsearched respiratory journals, and meeting abstracts. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and identified review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared a written action plan with no written action plan, or different written action plans with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials (three RCTs and one quasi-RCT) involving 355 children were included. Children using symptom-based WAPs had lower risk of exacerbations which required an acute care visit (N = 5; RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99). The number needed to treat to prevent one acute care visit was 9 (95% CI 5 to 138). Symptom monitoring was preferred over peak flow monitoring by children (N = 2; RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.46), but parents showed no preference (N = 2; RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 2.11). Children assigned to peak flow-based action plans reduced by 1/2 day the number of symptomatic days per week (N = 2; mean difference: 0.45 days/week; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26). There were no significant group differences in the rate of exacerbation requiring oral steroids or admission, school absenteeism, lung function, symptom score, quality of life, and withdrawals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that symptom-based WAP are superior to peak flow WAP for preventing acute care visits although there is insufficient data to firmly conclude whether the observed superiority is conferred by greater adherence to the monitoring strategy, earlier identification of onset of deteriorations, higher threshold for presentation to acute care settings, or the specific treatment recommendations.

摘要

背景

虽然所有哮喘共识声明都建议使用书面行动计划(WAP)作为哮喘管理的核心部分,但最近一项对随机试验的系统评价强调,仅有组间差异为是否提供书面行动计划的试验很少。

目的

本评价的目的一是评估为哮喘儿童和青少年提供与不提供书面行动计划的独立效果,二是比较不同书面行动计划的效果。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane Airways Group专业注册库(2004年11月),该注册库源自对Cochrane中心对照试验注册库、医学索引数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库的检索,以及对呼吸学期刊的手工检索和会议摘要。我们还检索了纳入研究的参考文献并识别了综述文章。

入选标准

纳入的随机对照试验需比较书面行动计划与无书面行动计划,或不同书面行动计划之间的差异。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立选择试验、评估试验质量并提取数据。与研究作者联系以获取更多信息。

主要结果

纳入了4项试验(3项随机对照试验和1项半随机对照试验),涉及355名儿童。使用基于症状的WAP的儿童急性加重需要急诊就诊的风险较低(N = 5;相对危险度0.73;95%可信区间0.55至0.99)。预防1次急诊就诊所需治疗人数为9(95%可信区间5至138)。儿童更喜欢症状监测而非峰流速监测(N = 2;相对危险度1.21;95%可信区间1.00至1.46),但家长无偏好(N = 2;相对危险度0.96;95%可信区间0.18至2.11)。分配到基于峰流速的行动计划的儿童每周有症状天数减少了1/2天(N = 2;平均差:0.45天/周;95%可信区间0.04至0.26)。在需要口服类固醇或住院的急性加重率、缺课情况、肺功能、症状评分、生活质量和退出试验方面,组间无显著差异。

作者结论

证据表明,基于症状的WAP在预防急诊就诊方面优于基于峰流速的WAP,尽管数据不足,无法确切得出观察到的优势是由于对监测策略的更高依从性、更早识别病情恶化的开始、前往急诊就医的更高阈值,还是特定的治疗建议。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验