Suppr超能文献

针对急症患儿的安全网式方法的有效性:一项网状Meta分析。

Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.

作者信息

Burvenich Ruben, Bos David Ag, Lowie Lien, Peeters Kiyano, Toelen Jaan, Wynants Laure, Verbakel Jan Y

机构信息

Leuven Unit for Health Technology Assessment Research (LUHTAR), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven; Academic Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2025 Jan 30;75(751):e90-e97. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141. Print 2025 Feb.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Safety-netting advice (SNA) can help in the management of acutely ill children.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of different SNA methods on antibiotic prescription and consumption in acutely ill children.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials, non-randomised studies of interventions, and controlled before-after studies in ambulatory care in high-income countries.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (22 January 2024). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with Cochrane's RoB 2 tool, the Revised Cochrane Tool for Cluster-Randomised Trials, and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach. Sensitivity analyses and network meta-regression were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies (20 interventions) were included. Compared with usual care, paper SNA may reduce: antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53 to 0.82, = 92%, very low certainty, three studies, 35 988 participants), especially when combined with oral SNA (OR 0.40, 95% CI = 0.08 to 2.00, -score = 0.86); antibiotic consumption (OR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.58, low RoB, one study, 509 participants); and return visits (OR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.87). Compared with usual care, video SNA, read-only websites, oral SNA, and web-based SNA (in descending order of effectiveness) may increase parental knowledge (ORs 2.33-4.52), while paper SNA may not (ORs 1.18-1.62). Similarly, compared with usual care, video SNA and web-based modules may improve parental satisfaction (ORs 1.94-4.08), while paper SNA may not (OR 1.85, 95% CI = 0.48 to 7.08).

CONCLUSION

Paper SNA (with oral SNA) may reduce antibiotic use and return visits. Video, oral, and online SNA may improve parental knowledge, whereas video SNA and web-based modules may increase parental satisfaction.

摘要

背景

安全网建议(SNA)有助于急性病患儿的管理。

目的

评估不同SNA方法对急性病患儿抗生素处方和使用的有效性。

设计与设置

对高收入国家门诊护理中的随机对照试验、整群随机试验、干预性非随机研究和前后对照研究进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

方法

检索了MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science核心合集和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(2024年1月22日)。使用Cochrane的RoB 2工具、修订后的Cochrane整群随机试验工具和非随机干预性研究中的偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。使用网络荟萃分析中的证据置信度方法评估证据的确定性。进行了敏感性分析和网络荟萃回归。

结果

共纳入30项研究(20种干预措施)。与常规护理相比,纸质SNA可能会减少:抗生素处方(优势比[OR]0.66,95%置信区间[CI]=0.53至0.82,I²=92%,极低确定性,3项研究,35988名参与者),尤其是与口头SNA联合使用时(OR 0.40,95%CI=0.08至2.00,I²=0.86);抗生素使用量(OR 0.39,95%CI=0.27至0.58,低偏倚风险,1项研究,509名参与者);以及复诊次数(OR 0.74,95%CI=0.63至0.87)。与常规护理相比,视频SNA、只读网站、口头SNA和基于网络的SNA(按有效性降序排列)可能会提高家长的知识水平(OR为2.33 - 4.52),而纸质SNA可能不会(OR为1.18 - 1.62)。同样,与常规护理相比,视频SNA和基于网络的模块可能会提高家长的满意度(OR为1.94 - 4.08),而纸质SNA可能不会(OR 1.85,95%CI=0.48至7.08)。

结论

纸质SNA(与口头SNA联合使用)可能会减少抗生素使用和复诊次数。视频、口头和在线SNA可能会提高家长的知识水平,而视频SNA和基于网络的模块可能会提高家长的满意度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/32e3/11789800/cc26aca2d9b4/bjgpfeb-2025-75-751-e90-1.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