首页> 外文期刊>国际护理科学(英文) >Case management does not decrease mortality of patients with myocardial infarction or unstable angina:Evidence from a systematic review
【24h】

Case management does not decrease mortality of patients with myocardial infarction or unstable angina:Evidence from a systematic review

机译:案例管理不会降低心肌梗死患者的死亡率或不稳定的心绞痛:来自系统评价的证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective:To objectively assess the impact of case management on patients with myocardial infarction or unstable angina.Methods:PubMed,EMBASE,Web of Science,Cochrane Library,China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials(RCTs)published through February 2015.The quality of eligible studies was independently assessed by two investigators.The primary outcome assessed from included studies was all-cause mortality,with total cholesterol,systolic and diastolic blood pressures,smoking cessation rates and cost-effectiveness as secondary outcomes.The pooled effect sizes were expressed as relative risk,odds risk,and standard mean difference with 95%confidence intervals.Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochrane Q and determined with an I2 statistic.Results:After the initial search,a total of four studies divided into six RCTs that included 1293 participants met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed.The results of meta-and descriptive analyses failed to identify any significant differences in all-cause mortality during the follow-up period of up to 36 months.Furthermore,a definitive conclusion for remaining indicators could not be drawn due to limited evidence.Conclusion:Case management is not beneficial to all-cause mortality after myocardial infarction or unstable angina compared to routine care.Additional,prospective RCTs of high quality and large scale are warranted to verify these results.
机译:目的:客观地评估案例管理对心肌梗死患者的影响或不稳定的型心绞痛。研究:Cochrane图书馆,中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI)和中国生物医学文献数据库的PUBMED,EMBASES,COMENTICAL,以及中国生物医学文献数据库。通过2015年2月出版的受控试验(RCT)。由两位调查人员独立评估合格研究的质量。来自于包括的研究评估的主要结果是全导致死亡率,总胆固醇,收缩性和舒张血压,吸烟停止率和成本 - 效率为二次结果。汇总效应大小表达为相对风险,赔率风险,标准平均差异,标准平均差异与95%的置信区间。使用Cochrane Q评估研究中的,并用I2统计测定。结果:初始搜索后,共有四项研究分为六个RCT,其中包括1293名参与者符合纳入标准分析D. Meta-and描述性分析的结果未能在高达36个月的随访期间识别所有导致死亡率的任何显着差异。繁多,由于有限的情况,无法绘制剩余指标的明确结论证据。结论:案例管理与心肌梗死或不稳定的心绞痛相比,案例管理与常规护理相比,不稳定的心绞痛。加盟,需要高质量和大规模的前瞻性RCT来验证这些结果。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号