Kwon Jong Kyou, Cho Kang Su, Oh Cheol Kyu, Kang Dong Hyuk, Lee Hyungmin, Ham Won Sik, Choi Young Deuk, Lee Joo Yong
Department of Urology, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea.
Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
BMC Urol. 2015 Jun 24;15:55. doi: 10.1186/s12894-015-0050-5.
This study was carried out a network meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate stent-related discomfort in patients with alfuzosin or tamsulosin versus placebo.
Relevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases. The proceedings of appropriate meetings were also searched. Seven articles on the basis of RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. Using pairwise and network meta-analyses, comparisons were made by qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Evaluation was performed with the Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire to assess the urinary symptom score (USS) and body pain score (BPS).
One of the seven RCTs was at moderate risk of bias for all quality criteria; two studies had a high risk of bias. In the network meta-analysis, both alfuzosin (mean difference [MD];-4.85, 95 % confidence interval [CI];-8.53--1.33) and tamsulosin (MD;-8.84, 95 % CI;-13.08--4.31) showed lower scores compared with placebo; however, the difference in USS for alfuzosin versus tamsulosin was not significant (MD; 3.99, 95 % CI;-1.23-9.04). Alfuzosin (MD;-5.71, 95 % CI;-11.32--0.52) and tamsulosin (MD;-7.77, 95 % CI;-13.68--2.14) showed lower scores for BPS compared with placebo; however, the MD between alfuzosin and tamsulosin was not significant (MD; 2.12, 95 % CI;-4.62-8.72). In the rank-probability test, tamsulosin ranked highest for USS and BPS, and alfuzosin was second.
The alpha-blockers significantly decreased USS and BPS in comparison with placebo. Tamsulosin might be more effective than alfuzosin.
本研究对随机对照试验(RCT)的证据进行了网络荟萃分析,以评估阿夫唑嗪或坦索罗辛与安慰剂相比,患者支架相关不适情况。
从电子数据库中识别相关RCT。还检索了适当会议的会议记录。我们的荟萃分析纳入了7篇基于RCT的文章。使用成对和网络荟萃分析,通过定性和定量综合进行比较。使用输尿管支架症状问卷进行评估,以评估尿路症状评分(USS)和身体疼痛评分(BPS)。
7项RCT中的1项在所有质量标准方面存在中度偏倚风险;两项研究存在高偏倚风险。在网络荟萃分析中,与安慰剂相比,阿夫唑嗪(平均差[MD];-4.85,95%置信区间[CI];-8.53--1.33)和坦索罗辛(MD;-8.84,95%CI;-13.08--4.31)的评分均较低;然而,阿夫唑嗪与坦索罗辛在USS方面的差异不显著(MD;3.99,95%CI;-1.23-9.04)。与安慰剂相比,阿夫唑嗪(MD;-5.71,95%CI;-11.32--0.52)和坦索罗辛(MD;-7.77,95%CI;-13.68--2.14)的BPS评分较低;然而,阿夫唑嗪与坦索罗辛之间的MD不显著(MD;2.12,95%CI;-4.62-8.72)。在秩概率检验中,坦索罗辛在USS和BPS方面排名最高,阿夫唑嗪排第二。
与安慰剂相比,α受体阻滞剂显著降低了USS和BPS。坦索罗辛可能比阿夫唑嗪更有效。