-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors.
SEARCH METHODS
We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.
Topics: Nephrectomy; Humans; Living Donors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Kidney Transplantation; Length of Stay; Pain, Postoperative; Operative Time; Tissue and Organ Harvesting; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 38721875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006124.pub3 -
BMJ Open May 2024To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal...
OBJECTIVE
To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.
DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.
RESULTS
We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022282565.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Critical Care; Periodicals as Topic; Sex Factors; Journal Impact Factor; Clinical Trials as Topic; Gender Equity; Cardiology
PubMed: 38719297
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081118 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Sep 2024The suitability of ambulatory surgery for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The suitability of ambulatory surgery for patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the odds of perioperative adverse events in patients with OSA undergoing ambulatory surgery, compared to patients without OSA.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched for studies published between January 1, 2011 and July 11, 2023. The inclusion criteria were: adult patients with diagnosed or high-risk of OSA undergoing ambulatory surgery; perioperative adverse events; control group included; general and/or regional anesthesia; and publication on/after February 1, 2011. We calculated effect sizes as odds ratios using a random effects model, and additional sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (375,389 patients) were included. OSA was associated with an increased odds of same-day admission amongst all surgery types (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.46-2.59, I:79%, P < 0.00001, 11 studies, n = 347,342), as well as when only orthopedic surgery was considered (OR 2.68, 95% CI 2.05-3.48, I:41%, P < 0.00001, 6 studies, n = 132,473). Three studies reported that OSA was strongly associated with prolonged post anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS), while one study reported that the association was not statistically significant. In addition, four studies reported that OSA was associated with postoperative respiratory depression/hypoxia, with one large study on shoulder arthroscopy reporting an almost 5-fold increased odds of pulmonary compromise, 5-fold of myocardial infarction, 3-fold of acute renal failure, and 5-fold of intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
CONCLUSIONS
Ambulatory surgical patients with OSA had almost two-fold higher odds of same-day admission compared to non-OSA patients. Multiple large studies also reported an association of OSA with prolonged PACU LOS, respiratory complications, and/or ICU admission. Clinicians should screen preoperatively for OSA, optimize comorbidities, adhere to clinical algorithm-based management perioperatively, and maintain a high degree of vigilance in the postoperative period.
Topics: Humans; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay; Adult; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General
PubMed: 38718686
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111464 -
Critical Care Research and Practice 2024A noninvasive and accurate method of identifying fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients has long been sought by physicians. Carotid ultrasound (US) is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A noninvasive and accurate method of identifying fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients has long been sought by physicians. Carotid ultrasound (US) is one such modality previously canvassed for this purpose. The aim of this novel systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether critically unwell patients who are requiring intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation (fluid responders) can be identified accurately with carotid US.
METHODS
The protocol was registered with PROSPERO on the 30/11/2022 (ID number: CRD42022380284). Studies investigating carotid ultrasound accuracy in assessing fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients were included. Studies were identified through searches of six databases, all run on 4 November 2022, Medline, Embase, Emcare, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. Results were pooled, meta-analysis was conducted where amenable, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were established to compare carotid ultrasound measures.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included ( = 842), with 1048 fluid challenges. 441 (42.1%) were fluid responsive. Four different carotid US measures were investigated, including change in carotid doppler peak velocity (∆CDPV), carotid blood flow (CBF), change in carotid artery velocity time integral (∆CAVTI), and carotid flow time (CFT). Pooled carotid US had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 0.73 (0.66-0.78), 0.82 (0.72-0.90), and 0.81 (0.78-0.85), respectively. ∆CDPV had sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC with 95% CI of 0.72 (0.64-0.80), 0.87 (0.73-0.94), and 0.82 (0.78-0.85), respectively. CBF had sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC with 95% CI of 0.70 (0.56-0.80), 0.80 (0.50-0.94), and 0.77 (0.78-0.85), respectively. Risk of bias and assessment was undertaken using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. The QUADAS-2 found that studies generally had an unclear or high risk of bias but with low applicability concerns. The GRADE assessment showed that ∆CDPV and CBF had low accuracy for sensitivity and specificity.
CONCLUSION
It appears that carotid US has a limited ability to predict fluid responsiveness in critically unwell patients. ∆CDPV demonstrates the greatest accuracy of all measures analyzed. Further high-quality studies using consistent study design would help confirm this.
PubMed: 38716052
DOI: 10.1155/2024/9102961 -
Pediatric Emergency Care Apr 2024Intranasal fentanyl (INF) has gained popularity in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) as an effective alternative to intravenous morphine for treating acute moderate...
BACKGROUND
Intranasal fentanyl (INF) has gained popularity in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) as an effective alternative to intravenous morphine for treating acute moderate to severe pain. Intranasal fentanyl eliminates the need for invasive access, making it advantageous for patients with minor injuries. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of INF administration in pediatric emergency wards, particularly compared with other treatment options described in the literature.
METHODS
A thorough search strategy identified randomized controlled trials assessing INF in the pediatric emergency ward. Eligible studies were independently screened, and relevant data were extracted. The analysis used pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous ones. Randomized controlled trials' quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.
RESULTS
In our study, 8 randomized controlled trials involving 806 patients, INF demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing pain compared with other comparators at the 15- to 20-minute mark (SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval, -0.37 to -0.08; P = 0.002). However, no significant differences were found at the 30- and 60-minute time points (SMDs, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50, 0.19; P = 0.37; and -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.19; P = 0.78) except when excluding one study to resolve heterogeneity at the 30-minute mark (RR, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.20; P = 0.87). Intranasal fentanyl also exhibited a better adverse outcome profile, with a lower risk of total adverse events and nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; P = 0.01; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P > 0.001) compared with other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed for dizziness and hallucination (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.68; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study assessed the effectiveness of INF compared with other analgesics in pain reduction. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrated superior pain reduction at the 15- to 20-minute point but showed no significant differences at 30 and 60 minutes. Intranasal fentanyl also had a more favorable adverse event profile, with a lower risk of nausea and vomiting than other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed in dizziness and hallucination between the groups.
PubMed: 38713846
DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This review is the second update of the original version first published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (26 February 2018 (discontinued)), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (23 November 2022), Embase Ovid (23 November 2022), CINAHL EBSCO (25 November 2022) and two trials registries, and performed a grey literature search. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage, or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used a fixed-effect model in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to request missing information. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
There was one new completed trial on this topic since the last update in 2018. In total, we included three trials with 134 participants. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess One trial (72 participants) compared the effects of a single preoperative dose of clindamycin versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement and filling) and analgesics to adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis. We assessed this study at low risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling across trial arms at any time point assessed. The median values for pain (numerical rating scale 0 to 10) were 3.0 in both groups at 24 hours (P = 0.219); 1.0 in the antibiotic group versus 2.0 in the control group at 48 hours (P = 0.242); and 0 in both groups at 72 hours and seven days (P = 0.116 and 0.673, respectively). The risk ratio of swelling when comparing preoperative antibiotic to placebo was 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.56; P = 0.41). The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was low. Two trials (62 participants) compared the effects of a seven-day course of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (total or partial endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. Participants in both trials also received oral analgesics. We assessed one study at high risk of bias and the other at unclear risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling at any time point assessed. The mean difference for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3, where 0 was no pain) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The standardised mean difference for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes in this comparison was very low. Adverse effects, as reported in two studies, were diarrhoea (one participant in the placebo group), fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group) and dizziness preoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group). Systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess We found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that preoperative clindamycin for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis results in little to no difference in participant-reported pain or swelling at any of the time points included in this review when provided with chemo-mechanical endodontic debridement and filling under local anaesthesia. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of postoperative phenoxymethylpenicillin for adults with localised apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided with chemo-mechanical debridement and oral analgesics. We found no studies which compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Drainage; Periapical Abscess; Periapical Periodontitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothache
PubMed: 38712714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010136.pub4 -
BMC Public Health May 2024A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
A notable research gap exists in the systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prefusion F vaccine.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov to retrieve articles related to the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of RSV prefusion F vaccines, published through September 8, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 78,990 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The RSV prefusion F vaccine exhibited a vaccine effectiveness of 68% (95% CI: 59-75%) against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness, 70% (95% CI: 60-77%) against medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness, and 87% (95% CI: 71-94%) against medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness. Common reported local adverse reactions following RSV prefusion F vaccination include pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, and systemic reactions such as fatigue, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea, and chills.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests that vaccines using the RSV prefusion F protein as antigen exhibit appears broadly acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in the population. In particular, it provides high protective efficiency against severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease.
Topics: Humans; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines; Vaccine Efficacy; Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Human; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38711074
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18748-8 -
BMC Anesthesiology May 2024Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has the potential to benefit graft function following kidney transplantation by reducing ischemia-reperfusion injury; however, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has the potential to benefit graft function following kidney transplantation by reducing ischemia-reperfusion injury; however, the current clinical evidence is inconclusive. This meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to determine whether RIC improves graft function after kidney transplantation.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases until June 20, 2023, to identify all randomized controlled trials that examined the impact of RIC on graft function after kidney transplantation. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) post-kidney transplantation. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of acute rejection, graft loss, 3- and 12-month estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on RIC procedures (preconditioning, perconditioning, or postconditioning), implementation sites (upper or lower extremity), and graft source (living or deceased donor).
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included eight trials involving 1038 patients. Compared with the control, RIC did not significantly reduce the incidence of DGF (8.8% vs. 15.3%; risk ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-1.21, P = 0.25, I = 16%), and TSA results showed that the required information size was not reached. However, the RIC group had a significantly increased eGFR at 3 months after transplantation (mean difference = 2.74 ml/min/1.73 m, 95% CI: 1.44-4.05 ml/min/1.73 m, P < 0.0001, I = 0%), with a sufficient evidence suggested by TSA. The secondary outcomes were comparable between the other secondary outcomes. The treatment effect of RIC did not differ between the subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSION
In this meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis, RIC did not lead to a significant reduction in the incidence of DGF after kidney transplantation. Nonetheless, RIC demonstrated a positive correlation with 3-month eGFR. Given the limited number of patients included in this study, well-designed clinical trials with large sample sizes are required to validate the renoprotective benefits of RIC.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Number CRD42023464447).
Topics: Humans; Kidney Transplantation; Ischemic Preconditioning; Delayed Graft Function; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Graft Rejection
PubMed: 38702625
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02549-y -
BJGP Open May 2024Acute abdominal pain is a common complaint, caused by a variety of conditions, ranging from acutely life-threatening to benign and self-limiting with symptom overlap...
BACKGROUND
Acute abdominal pain is a common complaint, caused by a variety of conditions, ranging from acutely life-threatening to benign and self-limiting with symptom overlap complicating diagnosis. Signs and symptoms may be valuable when assessing a patient to guide clinical work.
AIM
Summarising evidence on the accuracy of signs and symptoms for diagnosing serious illness in adults with acute abdominal pain in an ambulatory care setting.
DESIGN & SETTING
We performed a systematic review, searching for prospective diagnostic accuracy studies who included adults presenting with acute abdominal pain to an ambulatory care setting.
METHOD
Six databases and guideline registers were searched, using a comprehensive search strategy. We assessed the risk of bias, calculated descriptive statistics and measures of diagnostic accuracy. Results were pooled when at least four studies were available.
RESULTS
Out of 18,923 unique studies, 16 studies with moderate to high-risk bias were included. Fourteen clinical features met our criteria, including systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (LR +7.01), shock index >0.85, uterine cervical motion tenderness (LR +5.62 and LR- 8.60) and a self-assessment questionnaire score >70 (LR +12.20) or <25 (LR- 0.19). Clinical diagnosis made by the clinician had the best rule-in ability (LR +24.6).
CONCLUSIONS
We identified 14 signs and symptoms that can influence the likelihood of a serious illness, including pain characteristics, systemic signs, gynaecological signs and clinician's overall assessment. The risk of bias was moderate to high, leading to uncertainty, preventing us from making firm conclusions. This highlights the need for better research in this setting.
PubMed: 38697663
DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0245 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017. Acute appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) can be simple or complicated. Appendiceal phlegmon and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017. Acute appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) can be simple or complicated. Appendiceal phlegmon and appendiceal abscess are examples of complicated appendicitis. Appendiceal phlegmon is a diffuse inflammation in the bottom right of the appendix, while appendiceal abscess is a discrete inflamed mass in the abdomen that contains pus. Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms (e.g. abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting) and avoid complications (e.g. peritonitis (infection of abdominal lining)). Surgery for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess may be early (immediately after hospital admission or within a few days of admission), or delayed (several weeks later in a subsequent hospital admission). The optimal timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is debated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of early appendicectomy compared to delayed appendicectomy on overall morbidity and mortality in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 11 June 2023, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs that randomised 828 participants to early or delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon (7 trials) or appendiceal abscess (1 trial). The studies were conducted in the USA, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. All RCTs were at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding and lack of published protocols. They were also unclear about methods of randomisation and length of follow-up. 1. Early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon We included seven trials involving 788 paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon: 394 of the participants were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (open or laparoscopic appendicectomy as soon as the appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission), and 394 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy several weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 2.86; 3 trials, 146 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infections (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.02; 7 trials, 788 participants), and the proportion of participants who developed faecal fistulas (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 8.49; 5 trials, 388 participants). Early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.80; 4 trials, 626 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reduce the total length of hospital stay by about two days (mean difference (MD) -2.02 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.91; 5 trials, 680 participants), and increase the time away from normal activities by about five days (MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48; 1 trial, 40 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess We included one trial involving 40 paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess: 20 were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy), and 20 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The trial did not report on overall morbidity, various complications, or time away from normal activities. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on the total length of hospital stay (MD -0.20 days, 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon, very low-certainty evidence suggests that early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate. The evidence is very uncertain whether early appendicectomy prevents overall morbidity or other complications. Early appendicectomy may reduce the total length of hospital stay and increase the time away from normal activities, but the evidence is very uncertain. For the comparison of early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery, and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities and length of hospital stay.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Abscess; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Bias; Cellulitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 38695830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011670.pub3