...
首页> 外文期刊>Arab Journal of Urology >Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials
【24h】

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials

机译:输尿管结石的药物驱除疗法:动力性双盲随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析,分析证据

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted. Results The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) ( P 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) ( P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group ( P 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones 5 mm in size ( P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones ( P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones 5 mm ( P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones ( P 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones 5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10. Conclusion The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.
机译:目的进行系统的回顾和荟萃分析,研究在低偏倚风险(RoB)随机对照试验(RCT)中药物驱逐治疗(MET)的有效性和安全性。方法对1990年至2016年发表的文献进行Cochrane风格的系统评价,包括低RoB和功效计算。进行汇总荟萃分析。结果MET组包括1387 vs 1381例对照组。分析显示,α受体阻滞剂增加了排石率(78%vs 74%)(P <0.001),而钙通道阻滞剂(CCBs)与对照组相比无作用(79%vs 75%)(P = 0.38)。在亚组分析中,α-阻滞剂排石的时间比对照组短(P <0.001)。在治疗组和对照组之间,对于<5 mm大小的结石(P = 0.48),输尿管近端或中段结石(分别为P = 0.63和P = 0.22),排出率没有显着差异。但是,α受体阻滞剂在> 5 mm的结石(P = 0.02)以及输尿管远端结石(P <0.001)中会增加结石排出。 α-受体阻滞剂组产生更多的副作用(6.6%的患者; P <0.001)。治疗α受体阻滞剂的人数为14分之一,> 5 mm的结石为八分之一,远端的结石为十分之一。结论主要研究结果表明,α-阻滞剂作为MET治疗输尿管结石的总体获益较小,但建行没有好处。 α受体阻滞剂对大的(> 5 mm)输尿管结石和位于输尿管远端的结石显示出更大的益处,但对较小或更多的近端结石则无益处。与安慰剂或CCB相比,α受体阻滞剂具有更大的副作用风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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