急性护理手术模式是否能降低澳大利亚阑尾切除术阴性率:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Alex Britcliffe, Ashleigh Spittle, Suraj Rathnayake
{"title":"急性护理手术模式是否能降低澳大利亚阑尾切除术阴性率:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Alex Britcliffe,&nbsp;Ashleigh Spittle,&nbsp;Suraj Rathnayake","doi":"10.1016/j.hsr.2023.100106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Australia performs more appendicectomies per capita than nearly any other country. The surgical specialty responsible for performing appendicectomies in Australia, General Surgery, has recently undergone a paradigm shift away from traditional models of care and towards Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) models. ASUs are defined by the presence of a dedicated emergency general surgeon and the separation of elective and emergency surgical caseload. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the effect of care model type on the rate of negative appendicectomy, as well as other clinical outcomes pertaining to the appendicectomy patient.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was performed to identify studies investigating the effect of ASU care model on the outcomes of appendicectomy for Australian and New Zealand patients. These studies were required to have a comparison to a pre-existing or geographically related traditional care cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were used to identify, screen and analyse papers. Random-effects methods were used to perform a meta-analysis of negative appendicectomy rate and other relevant outcomes. Results were reported in either odds ratio or weighted mean difference.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified describing the outcomes of 8787 patients undergoing appendicectomy in Australian and New Zealand hospitals. There was no effect on negative appendicectomy rate between the ASU and traditional cohorts (OR: 1.10, CI: 0.944-1.262, p-value 0.20). Furthermore, no significant effect on time-to-theatre (WMD: 1.107, CI: 0.332 – 2.882, p-value 0.22), length of stay (MD: 0.563, CI: 0 – 1.135, p-value 0.13) or complication rate (OR: 0.872, CI: 0.596 – 1.148, <em>p</em>-value 0.36) was observed between the two cohorts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Rates of negative appendicectomy in Australia are similar in both ASU and traditional model cohorts. Significant improvements in appendicectomy outcomes seen under an ASU model in international data, or in data for other emergency conditions, have not been replicated on this meta-analysis of the Australian literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73214,"journal":{"name":"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does an acute care surgery model decrease the rate of negative appendicectomy in the Australian experience: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Alex Britcliffe,&nbsp;Ashleigh Spittle,&nbsp;Suraj Rathnayake\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hsr.2023.100106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Australia performs more appendicectomies per capita than nearly any other country. The surgical specialty responsible for performing appendicectomies in Australia, General Surgery, has recently undergone a paradigm shift away from traditional models of care and towards Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) models. ASUs are defined by the presence of a dedicated emergency general surgeon and the separation of elective and emergency surgical caseload. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the effect of care model type on the rate of negative appendicectomy, as well as other clinical outcomes pertaining to the appendicectomy patient.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was performed to identify studies investigating the effect of ASU care model on the outcomes of appendicectomy for Australian and New Zealand patients. These studies were required to have a comparison to a pre-existing or geographically related traditional care cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were used to identify, screen and analyse papers. Random-effects methods were used to perform a meta-analysis of negative appendicectomy rate and other relevant outcomes. Results were reported in either odds ratio or weighted mean difference.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified describing the outcomes of 8787 patients undergoing appendicectomy in Australian and New Zealand hospitals. There was no effect on negative appendicectomy rate between the ASU and traditional cohorts (OR: 1.10, CI: 0.944-1.262, p-value 0.20). Furthermore, no significant effect on time-to-theatre (WMD: 1.107, CI: 0.332 – 2.882, p-value 0.22), length of stay (MD: 0.563, CI: 0 – 1.135, p-value 0.13) or complication rate (OR: 0.872, CI: 0.596 – 1.148, <em>p</em>-value 0.36) was observed between the two cohorts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Rates of negative appendicectomy in Australia are similar in both ASU and traditional model cohorts. Significant improvements in appendicectomy outcomes seen under an ASU model in international data, or in data for other emergency conditions, have not been replicated on this meta-analysis of the Australian literature.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772632023000326\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health sciences review (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772632023000326","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

澳大利亚的人均阑尾切除手术比几乎任何其他国家都要多。在澳大利亚,负责阑尾切除术的外科专业——普通外科,最近经历了从传统护理模式向急性外科单元(ASU)模式的范式转变。ASUs是由专门的紧急普通外科医生和选择性和紧急手术病例负荷的分离所定义的。本荟萃分析的目的是确定护理模式类型对阑尾切除术阴性率的影响,以及阑尾切除术患者的其他临床结果。方法对Medline、Embase、Cochrane文库进行综合文献检索,找出ASU护理模式对澳大利亚和新西兰患者阑尾切除术结局影响的研究。这些研究需要与已有的或地理相关的传统护理队列进行比较。PRISMA准则被用于识别、筛选和分析文件。采用随机效应方法对阑尾切除术阴性率及其他相关结果进行meta分析。结果以优势比或加权平均差报道。结果13项研究符合纳入标准,描述了澳大利亚和新西兰医院8787例阑尾切除术患者的结局。ASU组与传统组对阑尾切除阴性率无影响(OR: 1.10, CI: 0.944-1.262, p值0.20)。此外,两组患者在入院时间(WMD: 1.107, CI: 0.332 - 2.882, p值0.22)、住院时间(MD: 0.563, CI: 0 - 1.135, p值0.13)或并发症发生率(or: 0.872, CI: 0.596 - 1.148, p值0.36)方面均无显著影响。结论澳大利亚的阑尾切除术阴性率在ASU和传统模型队列中相似。在国际数据或其他紧急情况的数据中,在ASU模型下阑尾切除术结果的显著改善尚未在澳大利亚文献的荟萃分析中得到复制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does an acute care surgery model decrease the rate of negative appendicectomy in the Australian experience: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Australia performs more appendicectomies per capita than nearly any other country. The surgical specialty responsible for performing appendicectomies in Australia, General Surgery, has recently undergone a paradigm shift away from traditional models of care and towards Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) models. ASUs are defined by the presence of a dedicated emergency general surgeon and the separation of elective and emergency surgical caseload. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the effect of care model type on the rate of negative appendicectomy, as well as other clinical outcomes pertaining to the appendicectomy patient.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was performed to identify studies investigating the effect of ASU care model on the outcomes of appendicectomy for Australian and New Zealand patients. These studies were required to have a comparison to a pre-existing or geographically related traditional care cohort. The PRISMA guidelines were used to identify, screen and analyse papers. Random-effects methods were used to perform a meta-analysis of negative appendicectomy rate and other relevant outcomes. Results were reported in either odds ratio or weighted mean difference.

Results

Thirteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified describing the outcomes of 8787 patients undergoing appendicectomy in Australian and New Zealand hospitals. There was no effect on negative appendicectomy rate between the ASU and traditional cohorts (OR: 1.10, CI: 0.944-1.262, p-value 0.20). Furthermore, no significant effect on time-to-theatre (WMD: 1.107, CI: 0.332 – 2.882, p-value 0.22), length of stay (MD: 0.563, CI: 0 – 1.135, p-value 0.13) or complication rate (OR: 0.872, CI: 0.596 – 1.148, p-value 0.36) was observed between the two cohorts.

Conclusion

Rates of negative appendicectomy in Australia are similar in both ASU and traditional model cohorts. Significant improvements in appendicectomy outcomes seen under an ASU model in international data, or in data for other emergency conditions, have not been replicated on this meta-analysis of the Australian literature.

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
Health sciences review (Oxford, England)
Health sciences review (Oxford, England) Medicine and Dentistry (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
75 days
×
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