压伤营养管理临床实践指南的证据图谱及其质量。

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Ya-Bin Zhang, Qi-Lan Tang, Shui-Yu Wang, Yu-Hua Zhao, Tian-Rui Wu, Jun-Xia Wang
{"title":"压伤营养管理临床实践指南的证据图谱及其质量。","authors":"Ya-Bin Zhang, Qi-Lan Tang, Shui-Yu Wang, Yu-Hua Zhao, Tian-Rui Wu, Jun-Xia Wang","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuad146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score  ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1524-1538"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence mapping of clinical practice guidelines on nutritional management for pressure injuries and their quality.\",\"authors\":\"Ya-Bin Zhang, Qi-Lan Tang, Shui-Yu Wang, Yu-Hua Zhao, Tian-Rui Wu, Jun-Xia Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/nutrit/nuad146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score  ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1524-1538\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nutrition reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad146\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad146","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:压力性损伤(PIs)营养管理的安全性和有效性一直是人们关注的主题。一些证据表明,营养对皮肤和组织的存活至关重要,有助于组织修复,从而治愈压力性损伤:本调查旨在系统回顾有关压力性损伤营养管理的临床实践指南(CPG),并提供证据图谱以评估研究趋势和 CPG 差距:方法:在 PubMed、Embase 和指南数据库以及学会网站上搜索了有关 PI 营养管理的 CPG。确定了 PIs 营养管理的基本建议、方法质量和 CPGs 报告质量,并将其导入 Excel。四名研究人员通过研究与评估指南评估(AGREE)II 工具和医疗实践指南报告项目(RIGHT)检查表独立阐明了每份 CPG 的质量。所有气泡图均使用 Excel 软件生成:本次审查包括 12 份 CPG,共提出 23 项建议。营养筛查和评估根据 PI 建议总结了 6 个主要项目、12 个营养管理项目和 3 个 PI 教育项目。所评估的 CPGs 质量参差不齐,基于表述清晰度的最高得分(标准差)为 83.46 ± 7.62,而基于 AGREE II 适用性的最低平均得分(标准差)为 53.31 ± 16.90。RIGHT检查表中第1项(基本信息)的报告率最高(68.06%),而第5项(审查和质量保证)的CPG质量最低(41.67%):本次调查提供了一个证据图谱,并为 PI 营养管理的 CPGs 提供了新的视角。然而,纳入的 CPG 仍需改进,尤其是在适用性和编辑独立性方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence mapping of clinical practice guidelines on nutritional management for pressure injuries and their quality.

Context: The safety and efficacy of nutritional management for pressure injuries (PIs) have been the subjects of ongoing interest. Some evidence demonstrated that nutrition is essential for skin and tissue viability, supporting tissue repair for healing the pressure injury.

Objective: This investigation aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutritional management of PIs and furnish an evidence map to assess research trends and CPG gaps.

Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and guidelines databases, and society websites were searched for CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. The basic recommendations for the nutritional management of PIs, method quality, and reporting CPGs quality were identified and imported into Excel. Four researchers independently elucidated each CPG's quality via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. All bubble charts were generated using Excel software.

Results: This review included 12 CPGs with a combined 23 recommendations. The nutrition screening and assessment were summarized on the basis of the PI recommendations for 6 major items, 12 items on nutrition management, and 3 on PI education. The assessed CPGs had mixed quality, and the highest score  ± standard deviation based on the clarity of presentation was 83.46 ± 7.62, whereas the lowest mean score based on AGREE II applicability was 53.31 ± 16.90. Field 1 (basic information) in the RIGHT checklist had the greatest reporting rate (68.06%), whereas field 5 (review and quality assurance) had the lowest CPGs quality (41.67%).

Conclusion: This investigation furnishes an evidence map and provides new perspectives on the CPGs for the nutritional management of PIs. However, the CPGs included still need improvement, especially in the applicability and editorial independence domains.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition reviews
Nutrition reviews 医学-营养学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.
×
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