Medicine · 2020
Comparisons of periventricular device closure, conventional surgical repair, and transcatheter device closure in patients with congenital ventricular septal defects: A Protocol for Systematic Review.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Dongxu, Zhang Zhao, Li Mengsi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical treatments for ventricular septal defects (VSDs) mainly include 3 approaches: conventional surgical repair (CSR), transcatheter device closure (TDC), and perventricualr device closure (PDC). PDC has been introduced in over 10 years, although there remain concerns about adverse events. This network meta-analysis is to compare PDC, CSR, and TDC in the treatment of congenital VSD.
METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for comparative studies on device closure and conventional repair for congenital VSDs to August 2019. A network meta-analysis with frequentist frame will be performed to compare the 3 approaches involving the success rate, in-hospital indexes, and incidences of complications, using risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: This study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will assess the safety and efficacy of PDC, CSR, and TDC in the treatment of congenital VSDs, and provide more evidence-based guidance in clinical practice.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125257.
METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for comparative studies on device closure and conventional repair for congenital VSDs to August 2019. A network meta-analysis with frequentist frame will be performed to compare the 3 approaches involving the success rate, in-hospital indexes, and incidences of complications, using risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: This study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will assess the safety and efficacy of PDC, CSR, and TDC in the treatment of congenital VSDs, and provide more evidence-based guidance in clinical practice.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125257.