International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2018
Comparison of the preventive effect of urethral cleaning versus disinfection for catheter-associated urinary tract infections in adults: A network meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cao Yulong, Gong Zhizhong, Shan Jiao, Gao Yan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are the main cause of infectious complications in patients with indwelling urinary catheters (IDCs). However, the best cleaning methods for the prevention of CAUTIs have not been evaluated clearly in previous studies.
METHODS: An electronic database search was performed, from inception to December 2017. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials using different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs were considered. The study selection and data collection were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias scale. The primary outcome was the incidence rates of CAUTIs. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect among the different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs.
RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (6490 patients) with seven different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection were eligible for inclusion, and the data were summarized in the network meta-analysis. No evidence of heterogeneity (P>0.05) was observed among the studies. The network meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the incidence of CAUTIs when comparing the different urethral cleaning methods versus disinfection (P>0.05 for all). However, chlorhexidine ranked first in the results of the Bayesian analysis and is recommended for preventing CAUTIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences among different urethral cleaning versus disinfection methods with regard to CAUTI incidence rates.
METHODS: An electronic database search was performed, from inception to December 2017. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials using different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs were considered. The study selection and data collection were performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias scale. The primary outcome was the incidence rates of CAUTIs. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect among the different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection to prevent CAUTIs.
RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (6490 patients) with seven different methods of urethral cleaning versus disinfection were eligible for inclusion, and the data were summarized in the network meta-analysis. No evidence of heterogeneity (P>0.05) was observed among the studies. The network meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in the incidence of CAUTIs when comparing the different urethral cleaning methods versus disinfection (P>0.05 for all). However, chlorhexidine ranked first in the results of the Bayesian analysis and is recommended for preventing CAUTIs.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences among different urethral cleaning versus disinfection methods with regard to CAUTI incidence rates.