Suppr超能文献

医学排石疗法在尿路结石病中的应用:当前证据质量的综述。

Medical Expulsive Therapy in Urolithiasis: A Review of the Quality of the Current Evidence.

机构信息

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

出版信息

Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Feb;3(1):27-45. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 May 27.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is widely used to promote spontaneous passage of urinary stones. However, there is conflicting evidence on the actual role of MET.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the conformance of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MET with the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria, and to clarify the current role of MET in management of urinary stones on the basis of our findings.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We carried out an electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases for RCTs on MET. For each RCT included, we created a checklist table documenting the minimum essential items that should be included in reports of RCTs according to the CONSORT 2010 statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Clinical heterogeneity between pooled studies in terms of the MET given, inclusion criteria, sample size, pre- and post-treatment imaging, and differential follow-up was profound. The overall methodological rigor of the pooled studies was low, as indicated by the moderate to poor conformance of the studies with the CONSORT criteria. The aforementioned reasons may explain the discrepancies found between the supporting results of several meta-analyses and those of well-designed placebo-controlled double-blind studies revealing no benefit from MET. Recent well-designed RCTs have shown no benefit from α-blockers versus placebo. However, on the basis of sensitivity analyses in a recently published meta-analysis, α-blockers may still promote spontaneous expulsion of large stones.

CONCLUSIONS

Conflicting data on MET may be explained by clinical heterogeneity and methodological flaws. Urologists must decide whether to follow single, large, well-conducted RCTs or pooled data from meta-analyses. The latter still support selective use of MET for larger urinary stones.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review we tested the accuracy of the studies published on various medications given to promote spontaneous passage of stones from the ureter. Although the majority of the studies were not designed properly, there is still some evidence to support medical expulsive therapy.

摘要

背景

医学排石疗法(MET)被广泛用于促进尿路结石的自然排出。然而,关于 MET 的实际作用存在相互矛盾的证据。

目的

评估发表的 MET 随机对照试验(RCT)与 CONSORT 报告标准的一致性,并根据我们的发现阐明 MET 在尿路结石管理中的当前作用。

证据获取

我们对 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed 和 Embase 数据库进行了电子搜索,以查找关于 MET 的 RCT。对于纳入的每项 RCT,我们创建了一个检查表表格,根据 CONSORT 2010 声明记录报告 RCT 中应包含的最小基本项目。

证据综合

汇总研究之间在给予的 MET、纳入标准、样本量、治疗前后影像学和差异随访方面存在显著的临床异质性。研究与 CONSORT 标准的一致性较差,表明汇总研究的整体方法学严谨性较低。上述原因可能解释了几项荟萃分析的支持结果与精心设计的安慰剂对照双盲研究的结果之间存在差异,这些研究表明 MET 无益。最近精心设计的 RCT 表明 α-阻滞剂与安慰剂相比没有益处。然而,根据最近发表的荟萃分析中的敏感性分析,α-阻滞剂可能仍然促进大结石的自然排出。

结论

关于 MET 的相互矛盾的数据可以用临床异质性和方法学缺陷来解释。泌尿科医生必须决定是遵循单个、大型、精心进行的 RCT,还是荟萃分析的汇总数据。后者仍然支持选择性使用 MET 治疗较大的尿路结石。

患者总结

在这项综述中,我们检验了发表的关于促进输尿管结石自然排出的各种药物的研究的准确性。尽管大多数研究设计不当,但仍有一些证据支持医学排石疗法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验