烧伤后瘙痒的治疗——一项系统评价与荟萃分析

Treatment of post-burn pruritus - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Andrade Luis F, Abdi Parsa, Kooner Amritpal, Eldaboush Ahmed Monib, Dhami Ramneek K, Natarelli Nicole, Yosipovitch Gil

机构信息

Dr. Phillip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.

Memorial University Faculty of Medicine, St. Johns, NL, Canada.

出版信息

Burns. 2024 Mar;50(2):293-301. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2023.09.012. Epub 2023 Oct 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.burns.2023.09.012

PMID:38097439

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Post-burn pruritus is one of the most common complaints reported by patients with limited evidence for a gold-standard treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature and assess the efficacy of various interventions in treating post-burn pruritus.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, Ovid Databases, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were searched. The articles were scored by two assessors for inclusion with a third independent assessor resolving conflicting scores.

RESULTS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised findings from a total of nine studies, representing a pool of 323 patients. The standardized mean effect size for the various categories of interventions was: naltrexone at 1.47 (95 % CI of 0.75-2.20, p < 0.0000), coverings at 0.94 (95 % CI of 0.40-1.48, p = 0.006), topical ozonated oil at 2.64 (95 % CI of 1.94-3.34, p < 0.00001), lasers at 2.34 (95 % CI of 1.60-3.09, p < 0.00001), current stimulation at 1.03 (95 % CI of -0.04 to 2.10, p = 0.06), and lemon balm tea at 0.54 (95% CI of 0.12-0.96, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that current modalities have a statistically significant, but not clinically significant, reduction in pruritus. This review highlights the limited quality of evidence in the literature and the poor quality of reporting among excluded studies.

摘要

背景

烧伤后瘙痒是患者最常见的主诉之一，目前尚无金标准治疗方案的充分证据。

目的

回顾文献并评估各种干预措施治疗烧伤后瘙痒的疗效。

方法

检索了PubMed、MEDLINE、CINAHL、Web of Sciences、Ovid数据库和ClinicalTrials.Gov。由两名评估人员对文章进行评分以确定是否纳入，如有冲突分数则由第三名独立评估人员解决。

结果

本系统评价和荟萃分析综合了9项研究的结果，共计323例患者。各类干预措施的标准化平均效应量为：纳曲酮1.47（95%可信区间为0.75 - 2.20，p < 0.0000），敷料0.94（95%可信区间为0.40 - 1.48，p = 0.006），局部臭氧油2.64（95%可信区间为1.94 - 3.34，p < 0.00001），激光2.34（95%可信区间为1.60 - 3.09，p < 0.00001），电流刺激1.03（95%可信区间为 - 0.04至2.10，p = 0.06），以及香蜂草茶0.54（95%可信区间为0.12 - 0.96，p = 0.01）。