急诊科晕厥患者住院还是出院?对 SAEM GRACE 直接证据的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Robert Allen, Ian S deSouza, Abel Wakai, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Eric Dunne, Isidora Rovic, Roshanak Benabbas, Shariar Zehtabchi, Richard Sinert
{"title":"急诊科晕厥患者住院还是出院?对 SAEM GRACE 直接证据的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Robert Allen, Ian S deSouza, Abel Wakai, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Eric Dunne, Isidora Rovic, Roshanak Benabbas, Shariar Zehtabchi, Richard Sinert","doi":"10.1111/acem.15111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Syncope is a frequent reason for hospitalization from the emergency department (ED), but the benefit of hospitalization is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the potential benefit of hospitalization for ED syncope patients for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a SRMA according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) framework: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope (population), does hospitalization (intervention) or direct ED discharge (comparison) improve short-term outcomes (outcome)? The primary outcome was a composite of all adverse events as defined by individual studies, up to 30 days. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We measured heterogeneity among included studies with I-squared statistic and used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search strategy identified 2140 publications and included 18 publications (510,545 participants) in the analysis. All studies reported higher rates of adverse events in hospitalized patients (0.7%-43.8%) compared to discharged patients (0%-3.7%). Our meta-analysis detected considerable statistical heterogeneity. The GRADE assessment for all adverse events and all-cause mortality revealed risk ratios of >5 favoring ED discharge for both outcomes at a median follow-up of 30 days. However, point estimates are limited by serious risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the uncertainty of the available evidence, this SRMA's findings do not support a recommendation for or against hospitalizing patients presenting to ED with syncope. However, discharging low-risk patients with syncope from the ED is associated with a low risk of short-term adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hospitalize or discharge the emergency department patient with syncope? A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Allen, Ian S deSouza, Abel Wakai, Rebekah Richards, Amelie Ardilouze, Eric Dunne, Isidora Rovic, Roshanak Benabbas, Shariar Zehtabchi, Richard Sinert\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.15111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Syncope is a frequent reason for hospitalization from the emergency department (ED), but the benefit of hospitalization is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the potential benefit of hospitalization for ED syncope patients for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a SRMA according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) framework: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope (population), does hospitalization (intervention) or direct ED discharge (comparison) improve short-term outcomes (outcome)? The primary outcome was a composite of all adverse events as defined by individual studies, up to 30 days. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We measured heterogeneity among included studies with I-squared statistic and used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search strategy identified 2140 publications and included 18 publications (510,545 participants) in the analysis. All studies reported higher rates of adverse events in hospitalized patients (0.7%-43.8%) compared to discharged patients (0%-3.7%). Our meta-analysis detected considerable statistical heterogeneity. The GRADE assessment for all adverse events and all-cause mortality revealed risk ratios of >5 favoring ED discharge for both outcomes at a median follow-up of 30 days. However, point estimates are limited by serious risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the uncertainty of the available evidence, this SRMA's findings do not support a recommendation for or against hospitalizing patients presenting to ED with syncope. However, discharging low-risk patients with syncope from the ED is associated with a low risk of short-term adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15111\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:晕厥是急诊科(ED)住院治疗的一个常见原因,但住院治疗的益处尚不明确。本系统综述和荟萃分析(SRMA)旨在整合和归纳目前有关急诊科晕厥患者住院治疗潜在益处的最佳证据,以制定基于证据的急诊科晕厥管理指南:我们根据患者-干预-控制-结果(PICO)框架进行了 SRMA 分析:对于因晕厥而到急诊室就诊的 16 岁或以上患者(人群),住院治疗(干预)或直接急诊室出院(对比)是否能改善短期疗效(结果)?主要结果是各研究定义的所有不良事件的综合结果,最长不超过 30 天。两名审稿人独立评估文章的纳入情况和方法学质量。我们用 I 平方统计量衡量了纳入研究的异质性,并使用 GRADE 标准评估了证据质量:我们的搜索策略发现了 2140 篇文献,并将 18 篇文献(510,545 名参与者)纳入分析。与出院患者(0%-3.7%)相比,所有研究报告的住院患者不良事件发生率更高(0.7%-43.8%)。我们的荟萃分析发现了相当大的统计学异质性。对所有不良事件和全因死亡率进行的 GRADE 评估显示,在中位随访 30 天时,两种结果的风险比均大于 5,更倾向于急诊室出院。然而,由于存在严重的偏倚风险、不一致性、不精确性、间接性和发表偏倚,点估计值受到了限制:由于现有证据的不确定性,SRMA 的研究结果并不支持推荐或反对推荐晕厥急诊患者住院治疗。不过,让晕厥的低风险患者从急诊室出院与短期不良事件的低风险相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hospitalize or discharge the emergency department patient with syncope? A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.

Background: Syncope is a frequent reason for hospitalization from the emergency department (ED), but the benefit of hospitalization is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to cohere and synthesize the best current evidence regarding the potential benefit of hospitalization for ED syncope patients for developing an evidence-based ED syncope management guideline.

Methods: We conducted a SRMA according to the patient-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) framework: In patients 16 years of age or older who present to the ED with syncope (population), does hospitalization (intervention) or direct ED discharge (comparison) improve short-term outcomes (outcome)? The primary outcome was a composite of all adverse events as defined by individual studies, up to 30 days. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. We measured heterogeneity among included studies with I-squared statistic and used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence.

Results: Our search strategy identified 2140 publications and included 18 publications (510,545 participants) in the analysis. All studies reported higher rates of adverse events in hospitalized patients (0.7%-43.8%) compared to discharged patients (0%-3.7%). Our meta-analysis detected considerable statistical heterogeneity. The GRADE assessment for all adverse events and all-cause mortality revealed risk ratios of >5 favoring ED discharge for both outcomes at a median follow-up of 30 days. However, point estimates are limited by serious risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias.

Conclusions: Due to the uncertainty of the available evidence, this SRMA's findings do not support a recommendation for or against hospitalizing patients presenting to ED with syncope. However, discharging low-risk patients with syncope from the ED is associated with a low risk of short-term adverse events.

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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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