胆总管综合征诊断和治疗指南的系统评价。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Shu-Yao Zhu, Jie Huang, Ying-Jia Li, Bo Zhou, Cai-Ying Zheng, Da-Li Sun, Yan Fu
{"title":"胆总管综合征诊断和治疗指南的系统评价。","authors":"Shu-Yao Zhu, Jie Huang, Ying-Jia Li, Bo Zhou, Cai-Ying Zheng, Da-Li Sun, Yan Fu","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current up-to-date guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key recommendations and corresponding evidence, focusing on the heterogeneity among these guidelines.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches across various databases were performed to identify the latest guidelines. The identified guidelines, which met the inclusion criteria, underwent evaluation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The key recommendations and evidence from the included guidelines were extracted and reclassified using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system, and the obtained results were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine guidelines related to choledocholithiasis were included in this study, out of which 4 achieved an overall standardized score of more than 60%, indicating their suitability for recommendation. Upon closer examination of the main recommendations within these guidelines, we discovered significant discrepancies concerning the utilization of similar treatment techniques for different diseases or different treatment methods under comparable conditions, and discrepancies in the recommended treatment duration. High-quality research evidence was lacking, and some recommendations either failed to provide supporting evidence or cited inappropriate and low-level evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis is uneven. Recommendations for the treatment of choledocholithiasis demonstrate considerable disparities among the guidelines, particularly regarding the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as a treatment method and the management approaches for difficult stone cases. Improvements by guideline developers for these factors contributing to the heterogeneity would be a reasonable approach to further update the guidelines for cholangiolithiasis.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Appraisal of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Choledocholithiasis.\",\"authors\":\"Shu-Yao Zhu, Jie Huang, Ying-Jia Li, Bo Zhou, Cai-Ying Zheng, Da-Li Sun, Yan Fu\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current up-to-date guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key recommendations and corresponding evidence, focusing on the heterogeneity among these guidelines.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Systematic searches across various databases were performed to identify the latest guidelines. The identified guidelines, which met the inclusion criteria, underwent evaluation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The key recommendations and evidence from the included guidelines were extracted and reclassified using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system, and the obtained results were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine guidelines related to choledocholithiasis were included in this study, out of which 4 achieved an overall standardized score of more than 60%, indicating their suitability for recommendation. Upon closer examination of the main recommendations within these guidelines, we discovered significant discrepancies concerning the utilization of similar treatment techniques for different diseases or different treatment methods under comparable conditions, and discrepancies in the recommended treatment duration. High-quality research evidence was lacking, and some recommendations either failed to provide supporting evidence or cited inappropriate and low-level evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis is uneven. Recommendations for the treatment of choledocholithiasis demonstrate considerable disparities among the guidelines, particularly regarding the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as a treatment method and the management approaches for difficult stone cases. Improvements by guideline developers for these factors contributing to the heterogeneity would be a reasonable approach to further update the guidelines for cholangiolithiasis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691658/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001230\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001230","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了系统地评估当前最新的胆总管结石指南的方法学质量,我们对关键建议和相应证据进行了全面分析,重点关注这些指南之间的异质性。方法:在各种数据库中进行系统搜索,以确定最新的指南。已确定的准则符合纳入标准,并使用研究和评估准则评估II(AGREE II)工具进行了评估。使用牛津循证医学中心(OCEBM)评分系统提取并重新分类了纳入指南中的关键建议和证据,并对获得的结果进行了分析。结果:本研究纳入了9项与胆总管结石相关的指南,其中4项的总体标准化评分超过60%,表明它们适合推荐。在仔细研究这些指南中的主要建议后,我们发现在可比较条件下对不同疾病或不同治疗方法使用类似治疗技术方面存在重大差异,建议的治疗持续时间也存在差异。缺乏高质量的研究证据,一些建议要么没有提供支持性证据,要么引用了不恰当和低级的证据。结论:有关胆总管结石的指南质量参差不齐。治疗胆总管结石的建议表明,指南之间存在相当大的差异,特别是在使用内镜逆行胰胆管造影作为治疗方法和困难结石病例的管理方法方面。指南制定者对这些导致异质性的因素的改进将是进一步更新胆管结石指南的合理方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Appraisal of Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Choledocholithiasis.

Background: To systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the current up-to-date guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key recommendations and corresponding evidence, focusing on the heterogeneity among these guidelines.

Method: Systematic searches across various databases were performed to identify the latest guidelines. The identified guidelines, which met the inclusion criteria, underwent evaluation using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. The key recommendations and evidence from the included guidelines were extracted and reclassified using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system, and the obtained results were analyzed.

Results: Nine guidelines related to choledocholithiasis were included in this study, out of which 4 achieved an overall standardized score of more than 60%, indicating their suitability for recommendation. Upon closer examination of the main recommendations within these guidelines, we discovered significant discrepancies concerning the utilization of similar treatment techniques for different diseases or different treatment methods under comparable conditions, and discrepancies in the recommended treatment duration. High-quality research evidence was lacking, and some recommendations either failed to provide supporting evidence or cited inappropriate and low-level evidence.

Conclusion: The quality of guidelines pertaining to choledocholithiasis is uneven. Recommendations for the treatment of choledocholithiasis demonstrate considerable disparities among the guidelines, particularly regarding the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as a treatment method and the management approaches for difficult stone cases. Improvements by guideline developers for these factors contributing to the heterogeneity would be a reasonable approach to further update the guidelines for cholangiolithiasis.

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
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
103
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.
×
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