Medicine · 2018
Nasointestinal tubes versus nasogastric tubes in the management of small-bowel obstruction: A meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Dong Xian-Wen, Huang Shi-Liang, Jiang Zhou-Hua, Song Yu-Fei, Zhang Xue-Song
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the therapeutic effect of nasointestinal tubes (NITs) versus nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in the management of small-bowel obstruction (SBO). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between the use of NITs and NGTs in the management of SBO.
METHODS: Published studies on comparing NITs with NGTs in the treatment of SBO were searched from electronic databases. Two investigators independently extracted the data; any discrepancies were adjudicated by a third investigator. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.0.
RESULTS: An extensive literature search identified 268 relevant publications, 4 of which met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the nonrequirement of operative intervention between NITs and NGTs groups (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 0.55, 5.84). Compared with the NGTs, the NITs, which successfully passed through the pylorus, did not decrease the rate of operation in patients with SBO (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 0.59, 8.15). There was no advantage of NITs over NGTs in patients with partial SBO (P-SBO) (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.23, 4.60). Postoperative complications were compared between the groups (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.09, 4.15).
CONCLUSION: The result of this meta-analysis showed no advantage of NITs over NGTs in the management of patients with SBO.
METHODS: Published studies on comparing NITs with NGTs in the treatment of SBO were searched from electronic databases. Two investigators independently extracted the data; any discrepancies were adjudicated by a third investigator. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.0.
RESULTS: An extensive literature search identified 268 relevant publications, 4 of which met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the nonrequirement of operative intervention between NITs and NGTs groups (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 0.55, 5.84). Compared with the NGTs, the NITs, which successfully passed through the pylorus, did not decrease the rate of operation in patients with SBO (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 0.59, 8.15). There was no advantage of NITs over NGTs in patients with partial SBO (P-SBO) (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.23, 4.60). Postoperative complications were compared between the groups (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.09, 4.15).
CONCLUSION: The result of this meta-analysis showed no advantage of NITs over NGTs in the management of patients with SBO.