Suppr超能文献

不同出口部位护理敷料预防非热带地区腹膜透析相关性感染的效果:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Effect of different exit-site care dressings on preventing peritoneal dialysis related infection from nontropical area: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Nephrology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

Department of Interventional Radiology and Vascular Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Ren Fail. 2024 Dec;46(2):2376331. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2376331. Epub 2024 Jul 16.

Abstract

OBJECT

This study aims to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of various dressings in preventing exit-site infection (ESI) and peritonitis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Sino Med, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from 1 January 1999 to 10 July 2023. The language restrictions were Chinese and English. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and self-controlled trials were included in this study. We used ROB 2 tool to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Two authors independently extracted the data according to the Cochrane Handbook. A Frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using Stata17.0 according to PRISAMA with a random effects model.

RESULTS

From 2092 potentially eligible studies, thirteen studies were selected for analysis, including nine randomized controlled studies, three quasi-experimental studies and one self-controlled trial. A total of 1229 patients were included to compare five types of exit site care dressings, named disinfection dressings, antibacterial dressings, non-antibacterial occlusive dressings, sterile gauze, and no-particular dressings. The outcome of prevention ESI is antibacterial dressings (SUCRA = 97.6) >non-antibacterial occlusive dressings (SUCRA = 68.3) >disinfection dressings (SUCRA = 50.6) >no-particular dressings (SUCRA = 23.9) >sterile gauze (SUCRA = 9.5). The antibacterial dressings were more effective than sterile gauze (OR = 0.13, 95%CI 0.04∼0.44), and no-particular dressing (OR = 0.18, 95%CI 0.07∼0.50) in preventing ESI; the non-antibacterial occlusive dressings were effective than sterile gauze (OR:0.30, 95%CI 0.16∼0.57). There is no statistical significance between no-particular dressings and other types of dressings in preventing the mature ESI. There is no statistical significance in the effectiveness of five types of dressings in preventing peritonitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The no-particular dressings maybe more cost-effective for preventing mature ESI. None of the dressings was more effective than another in preventing peritonitis. Then, none of the different types of dressing is strongly recommended for preventing ESI or peritonitis.

UNLABELLED

CRD42022366756.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析,全面评估各种敷料预防出口部位感染(ESI)和腹膜炎的疗效。

方法

我们检索了 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL Plus with Full Text(EBSCO)、Sino Med、万方数据、中国知网(CNKI),检索时间从 1999 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 7 月 10 日。语言限制为中文和英文。纳入的研究类型包括随机对照试验、非随机对照试验和自身对照试验。我们使用 ROB 2 工具评估纳入文献的质量。两位作者根据 Cochrane 手册独立提取数据。使用 Stata17.0 根据 PRISAMA 采用随机效应模型进行 Frequentist 网络荟萃分析。

结果

从 2092 篇潜在相关研究中,选择了 13 项研究进行分析,包括 9 项随机对照研究、3 项准实验研究和 1 项自身对照试验。共有 1229 名患者被纳入比较 5 种出口部位护理敷料,分别为消毒敷料、抗菌敷料、非抗菌密闭敷料、无菌纱布和无特殊敷料。预防 ESI 的结果为抗菌敷料(SUCRA = 97.6)>非抗菌密闭敷料(SUCRA = 68.3)>消毒敷料(SUCRA = 50.6)>无特殊敷料(SUCRA = 23.9)>无菌纱布(SUCRA = 9.5)。抗菌敷料比无菌纱布(OR = 0.13,95%CI 0.04∼0.44)和无特殊敷料(OR = 0.18,95%CI 0.07∼0.50)更有效预防 ESI;非抗菌密闭敷料比无菌纱布(OR:0.30,95%CI 0.16∼0.57)更有效预防 ESI。在预防成熟 ESI 方面,无特殊敷料与其他类型敷料之间无统计学意义。在预防腹膜炎方面,五种类型的敷料在有效性方面无统计学意义。

结论

无特殊敷料可能更具成本效益,预防成熟 ESI。在预防腹膜炎方面,没有一种敷料比另一种更有效。因此,不强烈推荐任何一种敷料用于预防 ESI 或腹膜炎。

未加标签

CRD42022366756。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/414e/467103/c4051e7e7b12/IRNF_A_2376331_F0001_C.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