Medicine · 2026
Bundle care interventions for patients with perianal pain: A scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание 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.
Fu Danying, Wu Chaojing, Zhu Bei, Xiang Linlin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Perianal pain is influenced by a complex interplay of physiological and psychological factors. Current research focuses predominantly on surgical or pharmacological treatments, while studies on bundle care interventions remain insufficient, particularly regarding dynamic assessments and mechanistic explorations.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to comprehensively analyze bundle care interventions for patients with perianal pain to provide a reference for precision management tailored to diverse patient profiles. By exploring individual characteristics and multicomponent interventions, this study provides theoretical support for personalized clinical care plans.
METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across 8 databases (EMbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and SinoMed) from inception to October 2025. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment using standardized forms. Given the significant heterogeneity across studies in interventions, populations, and outcome measures, findings were synthesized using a narrative approach.
RESULTS: Of 4210 initially retrieved articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Three primary bundle care intervention clusters were identified: pain management, wound care, and psychological support. Assessment tools varied, with multidimensional pain instruments being the most prevalent. Methodological quality assessment revealed that most included studies were observational designs with a moderate risk of bias. Key intervention effects included pain relief (with reported reductions of 15% to 20% on the Visual Analog Scale in select studies), improvements in psychological outcomes, and enhanced quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on developing perianal-specific bundle care assessment tools. Utilizing advanced techniques such as network analysis and multimodal predictive modeling will enhance intervention identification accuracy and foster precise bundle care management strategies.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to comprehensively analyze bundle care interventions for patients with perianal pain to provide a reference for precision management tailored to diverse patient profiles. By exploring individual characteristics and multicomponent interventions, this study provides theoretical support for personalized clinical care plans.
METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across 8 databases (EMbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and SinoMed) from inception to October 2025. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment using standardized forms. Given the significant heterogeneity across studies in interventions, populations, and outcome measures, findings were synthesized using a narrative approach.
RESULTS: Of 4210 initially retrieved articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Three primary bundle care intervention clusters were identified: pain management, wound care, and psychological support. Assessment tools varied, with multidimensional pain instruments being the most prevalent. Methodological quality assessment revealed that most included studies were observational designs with a moderate risk of bias. Key intervention effects included pain relief (with reported reductions of 15% to 20% on the Visual Analog Scale in select studies), improvements in psychological outcomes, and enhanced quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on developing perianal-specific bundle care assessment tools. Utilizing advanced techniques such as network analysis and multimodal predictive modeling will enhance intervention identification accuracy and foster precise bundle care management strategies.