婴儿腹绞痛

BMJ clinical evidence Pub Date : 2015-08-11
Peter Lucassen
{"title":"婴儿腹绞痛","authors":"Peter Lucassen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Colic in infants leads one in six families (17%) with children to consult a health professional. One systematic review of 15 community-based studies found a wide variation in prevalence, which depended on study design and method of recording.</p><p><strong>Methods and outcomes: </strong>We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for colic in infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 47 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 22 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 10 studies and the further review of 12 full publications. Of the 12 full articles evaluated, three systematic reviews and four RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for six PICO combinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic overview, we categorise the efficacy for seven interventions based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of casein hydrolysate milk, cranial osteopathy, Lactobacillus reuteri (probiotic), low-lactose milk, soya-based infant feeds, spinal manipulation, and whey hydrolysate milk.</p>","PeriodicalId":72432,"journal":{"name":"BMJ clinical evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Colic in infants.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Lucassen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Colic in infants leads one in six families (17%) with children to consult a health professional. One systematic review of 15 community-based studies found a wide variation in prevalence, which depended on study design and method of recording.</p><p><strong>Methods and outcomes: </strong>We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for colic in infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 47 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 22 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 10 studies and the further review of 12 full publications. Of the 12 full articles evaluated, three systematic reviews and four RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for six PICO combinations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic overview, we categorise the efficacy for seven interventions based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of casein hydrolysate milk, cranial osteopathy, Lactobacillus reuteri (probiotic), low-lactose milk, soya-based infant feeds, spinal manipulation, and whey hydrolysate milk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ clinical evidence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4531337/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ clinical evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ clinical evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:每六个有孩子的家庭中就有一个(17%)会因婴儿肠绞痛而咨询专业医生。一项针对 15 项社区研究的系统性综述发现,婴儿腹绞痛的发生率差异很大,这取决于研究设计和记录方法:我们进行了一项系统性综述,旨在回答以下临床问题:治疗婴儿肠绞痛的效果如何?我们检索了Medline、Embase、The Cochrane Library 和其他重要数据库,截至 2014 年 2 月(临床证据综述会定期更新;请在我们的网站上查看本综述的最新版本):在本次更新中,搜索电子数据库共检索到 47 项研究。经过重复数据删除和会议摘要去除后,筛选出 22 条记录纳入本综述。通过对标题和摘要的评估,排除了 10 项研究,并进一步审查了 12 篇全文。在这 12 篇经过评估的完整文章中,本次更新增加了 3 篇系统综述和 4 篇 RCT。我们对六种 PICO 组合进行了 GRADE 评估:在这篇系统综述中,我们根据与酪蛋白水解物牛奶、颅骨整骨疗法、Lactobacillus reuteri(益生菌)、低乳糖牛奶、大豆婴儿饲料、脊柱手法和乳清水解物牛奶的有效性和安全性相关的信息,对七种干预措施的有效性进行了分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Colic in infants.

Introduction: Colic in infants leads one in six families (17%) with children to consult a health professional. One systematic review of 15 community-based studies found a wide variation in prevalence, which depended on study design and method of recording.

Methods and outcomes: We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for colic in infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).

Results: At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 47 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 22 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 10 studies and the further review of 12 full publications. Of the 12 full articles evaluated, three systematic reviews and four RCTs were added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for six PICO combinations.

Conclusions: In this systematic overview, we categorise the efficacy for seven interventions based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of casein hydrolysate milk, cranial osteopathy, Lactobacillus reuteri (probiotic), low-lactose milk, soya-based infant feeds, spinal manipulation, and whey hydrolysate milk.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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