...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical nursing >Literature review: Should antipyretic therapies routinely be administered to patient fever?
【24h】

Literature review: Should antipyretic therapies routinely be administered to patient fever?

机译:文献综述:患者发烧是否应常规应用退热疗法?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Aims and objectives.: To determine whether the practices of routinely treating fever with antipyretic medications or physical cooling methods are supported by the literature. Background.: Fever is one of the commonest symptoms presented to caregivers. Previous research suggests that treating fever with antipyretic medications or physical cooling methods is often routine practice. This article considers that fever and the febrile response may have been preserved through evolution because of its advantage for host defences and that fever may have an adaptive value. It is questioned whether the administration of antipyretic therapies could prolong the duration of illness, as interventions to lower body temperature are acting against the body's natural response to infection. Design.: Literature review. Method.: Electronic databases and the Internet were searched, supplemented by citation tracking. Articles were eligible if the participants studied had received pharmacological or physical cooling interventions to reduce their body temperature during fever. The interventions were evaluated in regard to whether they prolonged duration of illness. Results.: Results were inconsistent. None of the studies found that antipyretic therapies reduced duration of illness in patients with fever. Evidence suggests that antipyretic therapies do not reduce the duration of illness, but can prolong it. Conclusions.: The evidence on which to base recommendations for practice is weak but does not support the current practice of administering antipyretic therapies routinely to patients with fever. Physical cooling methods alone should never be used. Nurses should assess patients with fever on an individualised basis and use antipyretic therapies selectively. Relevance to clinical practice.: The administration of antipyretics to patients with fever is an important issue, and nurses are at the forefront of decision-making. Evidence-based care delivery is expected by the NMC. A protocol to assist decision-making when caring for patients with pyrexia is suggested.
机译:目的:确定文献是否支持常规用退烧药或物理降温方法治疗发烧的作法。背景:发烧是护理人员最常见的症状之一。先前的研究表明,使用退烧药或物理降温方法治疗发烧通常是常规做法。本文认为,发烧和发烧反应可能通过进化得以保留,因为它具有宿主防御的优势,并且发烧可能具有适应性价值。人们质疑解热疗法的使用是否会延长疾病的持续时间,因为降低体温的干预措施正在对抗人体对感染的自然反应。设计:文献综述。方法:检索电子数据库和互联网,并辅以引文跟踪。如果研究的参与者接受了药理或物理降温干预措施以降低发烧期间的体温,则该文章是合格的。对干预措施是否延长病程进行了评估。结果:结果不一致。没有研究发现解热疗法能减少发烧患者的病程。有证据表明,退烧疗法不会减少疾病的持续时间,但可以延长疾病的持续时间。结论:为实践建议提供依据的证据很少,但不支持当前对发烧患者常规行退热疗法的实践。永远不要单独使用物理冷却方法。护士应根据个人情况评估发烧患者,并有选择地使用解热疗法。与临床实践的相关性:发烧患者使用退烧药是一个重要问题,护士处于决策的最前沿。 NMC预计将提供循证护理。建议一种方案,在照顾发热患者时有助于决策。

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