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

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-30 Print Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141
Ruben Burvenich, David Ag Bos, Lien Lowie, Kiyano Peeters, Jaan Toelen, Laure Wynants, Jan Y Verbakel
{"title":"Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ruben Burvenich, David Ag Bos, Lien Lowie, Kiyano Peeters, Jaan Toelen, Laure Wynants, Jan Y Verbakel","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Safety-netting advice (SNA) can help in the management of acutely ill children.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different SNA methods on antibiotic prescription and consumption in acutely ill children.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 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, <i>P</i>-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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":"e90-e97"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694319/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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, I 2 = 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, P-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.

急性病儿童安全网方法的有效性:网络荟萃分析。
背景:安全网建议(SNA)有助于急性病儿童的管理:安全网建议(SNA)有助于急性病儿童的管理。目的:评估不同的安全网建议方法对急性病儿童抗生素处方和用量的有效性:对非住院治疗中的随机对照试验、非随机干预试验和前后对照研究进行系统回顾和网络荟萃分析:我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、Web-Of-Science Core Collection 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(2024 年 1 月 22 日)。我们使用 Cochrane 工具 2、修订版群集随机试验 Cochrane 工具和 ROBINS-I 工具评估了偏倚风险(RoB)。证据的确定性采用 CINeMA 方法进行评估。我们进行了敏感性分析和网络元回归:我们纳入了 30 项研究(20 项干预措施)。与常规护理相比,纸质 SNA 可减少抗生素处方(OR=0.66 (95%CI: 0.53-0.85), I²=92%, 确定性极低;3 项研究,35,988 名参与者),尤其是与口服 SNA 结合使用时(OR=0.40(95%CI:0.08-2.00),P 值:0.86)、抗生素消耗(OR=0.39(95%CI:0.27-0.58),低 RoB;1 项研究,509 名参与者)和回访(OR=0.74 ,95%CI 0.63-0.87)。与纸质 SNA 和延迟使用抗生素相比,不使用抗生素的纸质 SNA 可减少抗生素用量(OR=0.27(95%CI:0.15-0.51,部分 RoB;1 项研究,206 名参与者)。视频 SNA、口服 SNA、只读网站和网络模块可增加家长的知识(ORs 2.23-4.52)。视频 SNA 和网络模块可提高家长满意度(ORs 1.64-4.08):结论:纸质 SNA(口服 SNA)可减少抗生素的使用和回访。视频、口腔和在线 SNA 可提高家长的知识水平,而视频 SNA 和网络模块可提高家长的满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信