Suppr超能文献

儿童有症状发热的管理:国家和国际指南的系统评价。

Symptomatic fever management in children: A systematic review of national and international guidelines.

机构信息

Gerhard Kienle Chair, Health Department, University of Witten/Herdecke, Herdecke, Germany.

Departments of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and Medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 17;16(6):e0245815. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245815. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Divergent attitudes towards fever have led to a high level of inconsistency in approaches to its management. In an attempt to overcome this, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the symptomatic management of fever in children have been produced by several healthcare organizations. To date, a comprehensive assessment of the evidence level of the recommendations made in these CPGs has not been carried out.

METHODS

Searches were conducted on Pubmed, google scholar, pediatric society websites and guideline databases to locate CPGs from each country (with date coverage from January 1995 to September 2020). Rather than assessing overall guideline quality, the level of evidence for each recommendation was evaluated according to criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM). A GRADE assessment was undertaken to assess the body of evidence related to a single question: the threshold for initiating antipyresis. Methods and results are reported according to the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

74 guidelines were retrieved. Recommendations for antipyretic threshold, type and dose; ambient temperature; dress/covering; activity; fluids; nutrition; proctoclysis; external applications; complementary/herbal recommendations; media; and age-related treatment differences all varied widely. OCEBM evidence levels for most recommendations were low (Level 3-4) or indeterminable. The GRADE assessment revealed a very low level of evidence for a threshold for antipyresis.

CONCLUSION

There is no recommendation on which all guidelines agree, and many are inconsistent with the evidence-this is true even for recent guidelines. The threshold question is of fundamental importance and has not yet been answered. Guidelines for the most frequent intervention (antipyresis) remain problematic.

摘要

引言

对发热的态度存在差异,导致其管理方法存在高度不一致。为了解决这个问题,一些医疗机构制定了儿童发热症状管理的临床实践指南(CPG)。迄今为止,尚未对这些 CPG 中建议的证据水平进行全面评估。

方法

在 Pubmed、google scholar、儿科协会网站和指南数据库中进行了搜索,以查找每个国家的 CPG(涵盖日期为 1995 年 1 月至 2020 年 9 月)。本研究不是评估总体指南质量,而是根据牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)的标准评估每条建议的证据水平。进行 GRADE 评估以评估与单个问题相关的证据:开始退热的阈值。方法和结果根据 PRISMA 声明进行报告。

结果

共检索到 74 条指南。退热阈值、类型和剂量、环境温度、着装/覆盖物、活动、液体、营养、直肠滴注、外部应用、补充/草药建议、媒体以及与年龄相关的治疗差异的建议差异很大。大多数建议的 OCEBM 证据水平较低(3-4 级)或无法确定。GRADE 评估显示,退热阈值的证据水平非常低。

结论

并非所有指南都对某个建议达成共识,许多指南与证据不一致,甚至是最近的指南也是如此。阈值问题至关重要,但尚未得到解答。最常见的干预措施(退热)的指南仍然存在问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9785/8211223/8b1422741d70/pone.0245815.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验