Suppr超能文献

临时造口与永久造口形成的调整或适应比较:一项系统综述

Comparison of Adjustment or Adaptation to the Formation of a Temporary Versus a Permanent Ostomy: A Systematic Review.

作者信息

Whiteley Ian, Randall Sue, Stanaway Fiona F

机构信息

Ian Whiteley, M Clin Nurs, Grad Cert STN, RN, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydney, and Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.

Sue Randall, PhD, RGN, Broken Hill Department of Rural Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2024;51(1):39-45. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000001031. Epub 2023 Nov 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to review evidence on adjustment or adaptation to an ostomy in persons with a temporary versus permanent ostomy.

METHOD

Systematic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We comprehensively searched the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs, Scopus, and EThOS and ProQuest dissertations from inception to July 21, 2021. We located 570 studies. Data were extracted into Covidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs tool.

FINDINGS

Thirty-one studies met inclusion criteria and were included; only 2 assessed adjustment using a validated adjustment tool (Ostomy Adjustment Inventory, OAI-23). One found better adjustment in those with a permanent ostomy at 6 months; the second did not formally test for statistically significant differences between groups. Other included studies assessed aspects of adjustment such as health-related quality of life and psychological symptoms. Findings differed between studies; the majority of studies were deemed at a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of evidence among studies evaluating adjustment to an ostomy in permanent versus temporary stomas was poor; the majority did not measure adjustment using a validated adjustment instrument. Therefore, differences in the ways those with a temporary ostomy or permanent ostomy adjust or adapt remain largely unknown.

IMPLICATIONS

Further high-quality studies are needed that compare adjustment to a temporary or permanent ostomy using a validated instrument. An understanding of differences in adjustment in those with a temporary and permanent ostomy is important for planning how health care services can be better tailored to meet the needs of ostomy patients beyond the initial postoperative period of recovery.

摘要

目的

本系统评价旨在综述关于临时造口与永久造口患者造口调整或适应情况的证据。

方法

系统评价。

检索策略

我们全面检索了以下文献数据库:MEDLINE(Ovid SP)、EMBASE(Ovid SP)、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Joanna Briggs、Scopus以及自数据库创建至2021年7月21日的EThOS和ProQuest学位论文。我们共找到570项研究。数据被提取到Covidence中,并使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和乔安娜·布里格斯工具评估偏倚风险。

结果

31项研究符合纳入标准并被纳入;仅有2项研究使用经过验证的调整工具(造口调整量表,OAI - 23)评估调整情况。其中一项研究发现永久造口患者在6个月时调整情况更好;另一项研究未对组间差异进行正式的统计学检验。其他纳入研究评估了调整的各个方面,如健康相关生活质量和心理症状。各研究结果存在差异;大多数研究被认为存在高偏倚风险。

结论

评估永久造口与临时造口患者造口调整情况的研究证据质量较差;大多数研究未使用经过验证的调整工具来衡量调整情况。因此,临时造口或永久造口患者调整或适应方式的差异在很大程度上仍不明确。

启示

需要进一步开展高质量研究,使用经过验证的工具比较临时造口与永久造口的调整情况。了解临时造口和永久造口患者调整情况的差异对于规划如何在术后初始恢复期之后更好地调整医疗服务以满足造口患者的需求非常重要。

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