优化剖腹产结果的循证医疗程序:系统综述

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-04-30 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212
Virginia Diaz, Celina Gialdini, Mónica Chamillard, Julia Pasquale, Guillermo Carroli, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran
{"title":"优化剖腹产结果的循证医疗程序:系统综述","authors":"Virginia Diaz, Celina Gialdini, Mónica Chamillard, Julia Pasquale, Guillermo Carroli, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing to unprecedented levels worldwide. As with any surgery, it has risks, and understanding the evidence base for interventions involved in a CS is essential to optimise outcomes and inform recommendations. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to summarise the evidence on medical procedures used in CS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACSs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions from database inception to January 31, 2024, with an updated search performed on January 24, 2025. We included SRs of RCTs that examined the effectiveness and safety of medical procedures used in CS. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 29 SRs (15 Cochrane and 14 non-Cochrane) published between 2002 and 2024 involving 408 unique RCTs including over 116,000 participants. Most reviews included trials from low- and middle-income countries (n = 21, 72.4%), combined both elective and emergency CS (n = 19, 65.5%), and were of high quality (n = 18, 62%), while 24.3% (n = 7) were of low and 13.7% (n = 4) were of critically low quality. The SRs presented 512 procedure-outcome comparisons (271 procedure versus procedure, 241 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 350 comparisons (68.4%), clear evidence of benefit for 97 (18.9%), possible benefit for 48 (9.3%), clear or possible no difference of effect for 9 (1.8%), clear evidence of harm for 4 (0.8%) and possible harm for 4 (0.8%). We found no SRs for 13 pre-specified procedures. Indwelling bladder catheter and its immediate removal, vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution, antibiotic prophylaxis, early oral intake, and abdominal binders are associated with benefits for some outcomes. There are no SRs on post-CS wound care, stitch removal, or time to resume sexual or physical activity, among others.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There are numerous gaps in the available evidence on medical procedures used in CS that require additional research. There is an urgent need for international recommendations to guide healthcare providers and policymakers in ensuring safer, evidence-based, care for women undergoing CS.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"83 ","pages":"103212"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076788/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Virginia Diaz, Celina Gialdini, Mónica Chamillard, Julia Pasquale, Guillermo Carroli, Maria Regina Torloni, Ana Pilar Betran\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing to unprecedented levels worldwide. As with any surgery, it has risks, and understanding the evidence base for interventions involved in a CS is essential to optimise outcomes and inform recommendations. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to summarise the evidence on medical procedures used in CS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACSs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions from database inception to January 31, 2024, with an updated search performed on January 24, 2025. We included SRs of RCTs that examined the effectiveness and safety of medical procedures used in CS. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We identified 29 SRs (15 Cochrane and 14 non-Cochrane) published between 2002 and 2024 involving 408 unique RCTs including over 116,000 participants. Most reviews included trials from low- and middle-income countries (n = 21, 72.4%), combined both elective and emergency CS (n = 19, 65.5%), and were of high quality (n = 18, 62%), while 24.3% (n = 7) were of low and 13.7% (n = 4) were of critically low quality. The SRs presented 512 procedure-outcome comparisons (271 procedure versus procedure, 241 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 350 comparisons (68.4%), clear evidence of benefit for 97 (18.9%), possible benefit for 48 (9.3%), clear or possible no difference of effect for 9 (1.8%), clear evidence of harm for 4 (0.8%) and possible harm for 4 (0.8%). We found no SRs for 13 pre-specified procedures. Indwelling bladder catheter and its immediate removal, vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution, antibiotic prophylaxis, early oral intake, and abdominal binders are associated with benefits for some outcomes. There are no SRs on post-CS wound care, stitch removal, or time to resume sexual or physical activity, among others.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There are numerous gaps in the available evidence on medical procedures used in CS that require additional research. There is an urgent need for international recommendations to guide healthcare providers and policymakers in ensuring safer, evidence-based, care for women undergoing CS.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"103212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076788/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EClinicalMedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103212","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:世界范围内剖宫产的使用正在增加到前所未有的水平。与任何手术一样,它都有风险,了解CS干预措施的证据基础对于优化结果和提供建议至关重要。我们对随机对照试验(RCTs)的系统评价(SRs)进行了综述,以总结CS中使用的医疗程序的证据。方法:在Cochrane系统评价数据库、PubMed、EMBASE、lilacs和CINAHL中进行检索,从数据库建立到2024年1月31日,无日期和语言限制,并于2025年1月24日进行更新检索。我们纳入了检查CS中使用的医疗程序的有效性和安全性的随机对照试验的SRs。AMSTAR 2和GRADE分别用于评估SRs的方法学质量和结果水平上证据的确定性。我们根据效果估计和证据的确定性将每个过程-结果对分为八类之一。概述已在PROSPERO注册(CRD 42023208306)。研究结果:我们确定了2002年至2024年间发表的29篇论文(15篇Cochrane论文和14篇非Cochrane论文),涉及408项独特的随机对照试验,包括11.6万多名参与者。大多数综述包括来自低收入和中等收入国家的试验(n = 21, 72.4%),选择性和紧急CS结合(n = 19, 65.5%),高质量(n = 18, 62%),而24.3% (n = 7)为低质量,13.7% (n = 4)为极低质量。SRs提出了512项手术-结果比较(271项手术与常规手术,241项手术与无治疗/安慰剂)。有350个比较证据不足或不确定(68.4%),97个(18.9%)有明显的证据表明有益,48个(9.3%)有可能有益,9个(1.8%)有明显或可能没有效果差异,4个(0.8%)有明显的证据表明有害,4个(0.8%)有可能有害。我们发现13个预先指定的程序没有sr。留置膀胱导管并立即拔除、阴道消毒液准备、抗生素预防、早期口服、腹部黏合剂与某些结果相关。在cs后的伤口护理、缝线拆除、恢复性生活或身体活动的时间等方面没有sr。解释:在CS中使用的医疗程序的现有证据中存在许多空白,需要进一步研究。迫切需要国际建议,以指导卫生保健提供者和决策者确保对接受CS的妇女进行更安全、循证的护理。供资:开发计划署-人口基金-儿童基金会-卫生组织-世界银行人类生殖研究、发展和研究训练特别方案,这是世界卫生组织(卫生组织)执行的共同赞助方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence-based medical procedures to optimise caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: The use of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing to unprecedented levels worldwide. As with any surgery, it has risks, and understanding the evidence base for interventions involved in a CS is essential to optimise outcomes and inform recommendations. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to summarise the evidence on medical procedures used in CS.

Methods: Searches were conducted in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACSs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions from database inception to January 31, 2024, with an updated search performed on January 24, 2025. We included SRs of RCTs that examined the effectiveness and safety of medical procedures used in CS. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).

Findings: We identified 29 SRs (15 Cochrane and 14 non-Cochrane) published between 2002 and 2024 involving 408 unique RCTs including over 116,000 participants. Most reviews included trials from low- and middle-income countries (n = 21, 72.4%), combined both elective and emergency CS (n = 19, 65.5%), and were of high quality (n = 18, 62%), while 24.3% (n = 7) were of low and 13.7% (n = 4) were of critically low quality. The SRs presented 512 procedure-outcome comparisons (271 procedure versus procedure, 241 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 350 comparisons (68.4%), clear evidence of benefit for 97 (18.9%), possible benefit for 48 (9.3%), clear or possible no difference of effect for 9 (1.8%), clear evidence of harm for 4 (0.8%) and possible harm for 4 (0.8%). We found no SRs for 13 pre-specified procedures. Indwelling bladder catheter and its immediate removal, vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution, antibiotic prophylaxis, early oral intake, and abdominal binders are associated with benefits for some outcomes. There are no SRs on post-CS wound care, stitch removal, or time to resume sexual or physical activity, among others.

Interpretation: There are numerous gaps in the available evidence on medical procedures used in CS that require additional research. There is an urgent need for international recommendations to guide healthcare providers and policymakers in ensuring safer, evidence-based, care for women undergoing CS.

Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

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
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
×
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