{"title":"特发性腹膜后纤维化的治疗方法:荟萃分析的系统回顾。","authors":"Annik Steimer, Mike O Becker","doi":"10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes \"regression of fibrosis,\" \"freedom from ureteric stents\" and \"relapse rate,\" and the secondary outcome \"clinical improvement.\" The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome \"improvement in renal function.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes \"regression of fibrosis,\" \"freedom from ureteric stent\" and \"clinical improvement\" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes \"regression of fibrosis\" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), \"freedom from ureteric stent\" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), \"relapse rate\" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and \"clinical improvement\" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Considering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.</p>","PeriodicalId":9150,"journal":{"name":"BMC Rheumatology","volume":"9 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Annik Steimer, Mike O Becker\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes \\\"regression of fibrosis,\\\" \\\"freedom from ureteric stents\\\" and \\\"relapse rate,\\\" and the secondary outcome \\\"clinical improvement.\\\" The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome \\\"improvement in renal function.\\\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes \\\"regression of fibrosis,\\\" \\\"freedom from ureteric stent\\\" and \\\"clinical improvement\\\" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes \\\"regression of fibrosis\\\" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), \\\"freedom from ureteric stent\\\" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), \\\"relapse rate\\\" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and \\\"clinical improvement\\\" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Considering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800648/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-024-00445-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:目前,特发性腹膜后纤维化没有标准的治疗方法,因此进行了系统的评价,以评估不同治疗方法的有效性。方法:使用PubMed、Embase和PreMedline对1980 - 2021年的英、德文献进行综合检索。纳入的研究必须至少有两名患者采用相同的治疗方法并报告相关的治疗结果。对主要结果“纤维化消退”、“不再使用输尿管支架”和“复发率”以及次要结果“临床改善”进行了亚组分析的荟萃分析。由于缺乏同质性数据,无法对主要结局“肾功能改善”进行亚组分析。结果:共检索到3818篇文献,其中选择108篇进行定性分析,涉及1408例患者。荟萃分析纳入了83项研究,涉及1044名患者。结果“纤维化消退”、“不需要输尿管支架”和“临床改善”的总效应值较高,在80-97.9%之间。所有研究的总复发率为18.1%。亚组分析显示,两种治疗方法在“纤维化消退”(QM = 2.72, p = 0.74)、“输尿管支架脱落”(QM = 7.21, p = 0.13)、“复发率”(QM = 11.34, p = 0.08)和“临床改善”(QM = 9.54, p = 0.15)方面的疗效差异无统计学意义。结论:考虑到缺乏明确的证据表明一种药物比另一种药物更有效,治疗选择应取决于不同药物治疗的潜在副作用、患者合并症和临床医生专业知识等因素。审查方案在PROSPERO上注册,识别号为CRD42019115744。
Treatment approaches for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Background: Currently, there is no standard therapy for idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis, so a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches.
Methods: A comprehensive search of English and German literature from 1980 to 2021 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and PreMedline. To be included, studies must have had a minimum of two patients employing the same treatment approach and reporting relevant treatment outcomes. A meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stents" and "relapse rate," and the secondary outcome "clinical improvement." The lack of homogeneous data prevented a subgroup analysis for the primary outcome "improvement in renal function."
Results: The search resulted in a total of 3818 articles, of which 108 were selected for qualitative analysis involving a total of 1408 patients. For the meta-analysis 83 studies were included involving 1044 patients. The summary effect size of the outcomes "regression of fibrosis," "freedom from ureteric stent" and "clinical improvement" was high with values between 80-97.9%. The summary relapse rate across studies was 18.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment approaches for the outcomes "regression of fibrosis" (QM = 2.72, p = 0.74), "freedom from ureteric stent" (QM = 7.21, p = 0.13), "relapse rate" (QM = 11.34, p = 0.08) and "clinical improvement" (QM = 9.54, p = 0.15).
Conclusions: Considering the lack of clear evidence indicating that one drug is more effective than the other, the treatment choice should depend on factors such as the potential side effects of different drug therapies, patient comorbidities, and clinician expertise. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO under the identification number CRD42019115744.