Suppr超能文献

远程问诊与常规产前检查中的面对面问诊相比:系统评价。

Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health and the Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island; the Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; the Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

出版信息

Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jul 1;142(1):19-29. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005194. Epub 2023 Jun 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported.

CONCLUSION

People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.

摘要

目的

比较接受常规产前护理的人群中远程问诊和面对面就诊的获益和危害。

资料来源

对 2022 年 2 月 12 日之前的 PubMed、Cochrane 数据库、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 进行了产前(产前)护理、妊娠、产科、远程医疗、远程护理、智能手机、远程监测以及相关术语的搜索,以及主要研究设计。该搜索仅限于高收入国家。

研究选择方法

在 Abstrackr 中对比较远程问诊和面对面常规产前护理就诊的母婴、儿童、卫生保健利用和危害结局的研究进行了双重独立筛选。数据被提取到 SRDRplus 中,并由第二名研究人员进行审查。

列表、综合和结果:两项随机对照试验、四项非随机比较研究和一项调查比较了 2004 年至 2020 年期间的就诊类型,其中三项是在 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间进行的。各项研究中远程问诊的次数、时间和模式以及提供护理的人员各不相同。比较混合(远程问诊和面对面就诊)和所有面对面就诊的研究提供的低强度证据表明,新生儿重症监护病房入院率无差异(新生儿汇总优势比 [OR] 1.02,95%CI 0.82-1.28)或早产(汇总 OR 0.93,95%CI 0.84-1.03)。然而,与使用混合就诊和早产之间具有更强关联的研究,尽管在统计学上仍无显著性,但比较了 COVID-19 大流行和大流行前时期,使这种关联复杂化。有低强度证据表明,接受混合就诊的孕妇对整体产前护理的满意度更高。其他结局报告较少。

结论

孕妇可能更喜欢混合远程问诊和面对面就诊。虽然没有证据表明混合就诊和面对面就诊之间在临床结局上存在差异,但证据不足以评估大多数结局。

系统评价注册

PROSPERO,CRD42021272287。

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