Wade Ros, Paton Fiona, Rice Stephen, Stansby Gerard, Millner Peter, Flavell Hayley, Fox Dave, Woolacott Nerys
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Northern Vascular Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 16;6(2):e009456. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009456.
To assess the clinical effectiveness of thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients.
Systematic review and meta-analysis using direct methods and network meta-analysis.
Previous systematic reviews and electronic databases were searched to February 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of thigh length or knee length antiembolism stockings in surgical patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. Analysis of the DVT data was performed using ORs along with 95% CIs. The I(2) statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity.
23 RCTs were included; there was substantial variation between the trials and many were poorly reported with an unclear risk of bias. Five RCTs directly comparing thigh length versus knee length stockings were pooled and the summary estimate of effect favouring thigh length stockings was not statistically significant (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.73). 13 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis; thigh length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis were more effective than knee length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis, but again results were not statistically significant (OR 1.76, 95% credible intervals 0.82 to 3.53).
Thigh length stockings may be more effective than knee length stockings, but results did not reach statistical significance and the evidence base is weak. Further research to confirm this finding is unlikely to be worthwhile. While thigh length stockings appear to have superior efficacy, practical issues such as patient acceptability may prevent their wide use in clinical practice.
CRD42014007202.
评估大腿长度与膝盖长度的抗栓袜预防外科手术患者深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的临床效果。
采用直接方法和网状Meta分析的系统评价和Meta分析。
检索既往系统评价和电子数据库至2014年2月,查找关于外科手术患者使用大腿长度或膝盖长度抗栓袜的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。主要结局是DVT的发生率。使用OR值及95%可信区间对DVT数据进行分析。I²统计量用于量化统计学异质性。
纳入23项RCT;各试验间存在较大差异,许多报告质量较差,偏倚风险不明确。汇总了5项直接比较大腿长度与膝盖长度抗栓袜的RCT,支持大腿长度抗栓袜的效应汇总估计无统计学意义(OR 1.48,95%CI 0.80至2.73)。网状Meta分析纳入13项RCT;药物预防联合大腿长度抗栓袜比药物预防联合膝盖长度抗栓袜更有效,但结果同样无统计学意义(OR 1.76,95%可信区间0.82至3.53)。
大腿长度抗栓袜可能比膝盖长度抗栓袜更有效,但结果未达到统计学意义,证据基础薄弱。进一步研究以证实这一发现可能不值得。虽然大腿长度抗栓袜似乎疗效更佳,但诸如患者可接受性等实际问题可能会阻碍其在临床实践中的广泛应用。
CRD42014007202。