RESUMO

ABSTRACT Introduction: The ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a medical device that enables repeated entrance into the ureter and collecting system during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Its impact on stone-free rates, ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing RIRS with versus without UAS for urolithiasis management. Purpose: To compare outcomes from retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stone extraction with or without ureteral access sheath (UAS); evaluating stone-free rate (SFR), ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes of UAS use in RIRS for urolithiasis treatment. Articles published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: Five RCTs comprising 466 procedures were included. Of these, 246 (52.7%) utilized UAS. The follow-up ranged from 1 week to 1 month. UAS reduced the incidence of postoperative fever (RR 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.84; p=0.009), and postoperative infection (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.83; p=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of SFR (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.11; p=0.10), ureteral injuries (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.75; p=0.11), operative time (MD 3.56 minutes; 95% CI −4.15 to 11.27 minutes; p=0.36), or length of stay (MD 0.32 days; 95% CI −0.42 to 1.07 days; p=0.40). Conclusion: UAS leads to a lower rate of post-operative fever and infection. However, UAS did not significantly reduce or increase the SFR or the rate of ureteral injuries during RIRS for patients with urolithiasis. The use of UAS should be considered to decrease the risk of infectious complications, particularly in those who may be at higher risk for such complications.

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: Success rates in endourological procedures, notably percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS), have demonstrated suboptimal outcomes, leading to more reinterventions and radiation exposure. Recently, the use of intraoperative computed tomography (ICT) scans has been hypothesized as a promising solution for improving outcomes in endourology procedures. With this considered, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing all available studies that evaluate the impact of the use of intraoperative CT scans on surgical outcomes compared to conventional fluoroscopic-guided procedures. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases were systematically searched up to December of 2023. This study aimed to directly compare the use of an ICT scan with the standard non-ICT-guided procedure. The primary endpoint of interest was success rate, and the secondary endpoints were complications and reintervention rates, while radiation exposure was also evaluated. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed following Cochrane recommendations. Data was presented as an Odds ratio with 95%CI across trials and a random-effects model was selected for pooling of data. Results: A comprehensive search yielded 533 studies, resulting in the selection of 3 cohorts including 327 patients (103 ICT vs 224 in non-ICT). Primary outcome was significantly higher in the experimental group versus the control group (84.5% vs 41.4% respectively, 307 patients; 95% CI [3.61, 12.72]; p<0.00001; I2=0). Reintervention rates also decreased from 32.6% in the control to 12.6% in the ICT group (OR 0.34; 95%CI [0.12,0.94]; p =0.04; I2= 48%), whereas complication rates did not exhibit significant differences. Radiation exposure was also significantly reduced in two of the included studies. Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights a favorable outcome with intraoperative CT scan use in PCNL procedures, showing a considerable increase in SFR when compared to standard fluoroscopy and nephroscopy. Despite limited studies, our synthesis underscores the potential of ICT scans to significantly reduce residual stones and their consequences for endourology patients, as reinterventions and follow-up ionizing radiation studies.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Success rates in endourological procedures, notably percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureteroscopy (URS), have demonstrated suboptimal outcomes, leading to more reinterventions and radiation exposure. Recently, the use of intraoperative computed tomography (ICT) scans has been hypothesized as a promising solution for improving outcomes in endourology procedures. With this considered, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing all available studies that evaluate the impact of the use of intraoperative CT scans on surgical outcomes compared to conventional fluoroscopic-guided procedures. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases were systematically searched up to December of 2023. This study aimed to directly compare the use of an ICT scan with the standard non-ICT-guided procedure. The primary endpoint of interest was success rate, and the secondary endpoints were complications and reintervention rates, while radiation exposure was also evaluated. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed following Cochrane recommendations. Data was presented as an Odds ratio with 95%CI across trials and a random-effects model was selected for pooling of data. RESULTS: A comprehensive search yielded 533 studies, resulting in the selection of 3 cohorts including 327 patients (103 ICT vs 224 in non-ICT). Primary outcome was significantly higher in the experimental group versus the control group (84.5% vs 41.4% respectively, 307 patients; 95% CI [3.61, 12.72]; p<0.00001; I2=0). Reintervention rates also decreased from 32.6% in the control to 12.6% in the ICT group (OR 0.34; 95%CI [0.12,0.94]; p =0.04; I2= 48%), whereas complication rates did not exhibit significant differences. Radiation exposure was also significantly reduced in two of the included studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis highlights a favorable outcome with intraoperative CT scan use in PCNL procedures, showing a considerable increase in SFR when compared to standard fluoroscopy and nephroscopy. Despite limited studies, our synthesis underscores the potential of ICT scans to significantly reduce residual stones and their consequences for endourology patients, as reinterventions and follow-up ionizing radiation studies.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Purpose: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm. The best drug for MET is still uncertain. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of tadalafil and tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET) and the side effect profile. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception until April 2023. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Results: Eleven publications with 1,330 patients were included. We observed that tadalafil has a higher SER (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.38;0.80, p=0.02, I2=52%) and the same efficacy in SET (MD 1.07, CI 95% -0.25; 2.39, p=0.11, I2=84%). No differences were found when comparing side effects as headache, backache, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. Conclusion: Tadalafil has a higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy for patients with distal stones from 5 to 10 mm without differences in side effects.

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm. The best drug for MET is still uncertain. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of tadalafil and tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET) and the side effect profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception until April 2023. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Eleven publications with 1,330 patients were included. We observed that tadalafil has a higher SER (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.38;0.80, p=0.02, I2=52%) and the same efficacy in SET (MD 1.07, CI 95% -0.25; 2.39, p=0.11, I2=84%). No differences were found when comparing side effects as headache, backache, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil has a higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy for patients with distal stones from 5 to 10 mm without differences in side effects.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: Pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) is the most common conservative management for urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed this meta-analysis to investigate whether PFME during the entire perioperative period, including before and after RP, can significantly improve the recovery of postoperative UI. Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) from PubMed, Medline, web of science, Cochrane library, and clinicalitrials.com prior to October 2022. Efficacy data were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3. Pooled analyses of urinary incontinence rates 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were conducted, using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included a total of 15 RCT studies involving 2178 patients received RP. Postoperative UI could be improved after 1 month, 3 months and 6 months, and the OR were 0.26 (95%CI:0.15-0.46) 0.30 (95%CI: 0.11-0.80) 0.20 (95%CI: 0.07- 0.56) in postoperative PFME group compared to no PFME group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in 12 months after surgery, and the OR was 0.85(95%CI: 0.48,1.51). There were similar results in perioperative PFME group compared to no PFME group with the OR of 0.35 (95%CI: 0.12, 0.98) and 0.40 (95%CI: 0.21, 0.75) in 1 and 3 months after surgery. Our results indicated no significant difference between perioperative PFME group and postoperative PFME group. The OR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.20-1.71) 0.58 (95%CI:0.20-0.71) and 0.66 (95%CI: 0.32-1.38) in 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. Conclusion: Application of PFME after RP significantly reduced the incidence of early postoperative UI, and additional preoperative PFME had no significant improvement on the recovery of UI.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pelvic floor muscle exercise (PFME) is the most common conservative management for urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed this meta-analysis to investigate whether PFME during the entire perioperative period, including before and after RP, can significantly improve the recovery of postoperative UI. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) from PubMed, Medline, web of science, Cochrane library, and clinicalitrials.com prior to October 2022. Efficacy data were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.3. Pooled analyses of urinary incontinence rates 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively were conducted, using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included a total of 15 RCT studies involving 2178 patients received RP. Postoperative UI could be improved after 1 month, 3 months and 6 months, and the OR were 0.26 (95%CI:0.15-0.46) 0.30 (95%CI: 0.11-0.80) 0.20 (95%CI: 0.07- 0.56) in postoperative PFME group compared to no PFME group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in 12 months after surgery, and the OR was 0.85(95%CI: 0.48,1.51). There were similar results in perioperative PFME group compared to no PFME group with the OR of 0.35 (95%CI: 0.12, 0.98) and 0.40 (95%CI: 0.21, 0.75) in 1 and 3 months after surgery. Our results indicated no significant difference between perioperative PFME group and postoperative PFME group. The OR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.20-1.71) 0.58 (95%CI:0.20-0.71) and 0.66 (95%CI: 0.32-1.38) in 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Application of PFME after RP significantly reduced the incidence of early postoperative UI, and additional preoperative PFME had no significant improvement on the recovery of UI.

Assuntos

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of laser therapy for managing patients with orofacial pain (OFP). In addition, to determine which parameters provide the best treatment effects to reduce pain, improve function, and quality of life in adults with OFP. METHODS: Systematic review. Searches were conducted in six databases; no date or language restrictions were applied. Studies involving adults with OFP treated with laser therapy were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB-2. A meta-analysis was structured around the OFP type, and outcomes. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies were included. Most studies (n = 72, 80.9%) were considered to have a high RoB. The results showed that laser therapy was better than placebo in improving pain, maximal mouth open (MMO), protrusion, and tenderness at the final assessment, but with a low or moderate level of evidence. The best lasers and parameters to reduce pain are diode or gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) lasers, a wavelength of 400-800 or 800-1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2. CONCLUSIONS: Laser therapy was better than placebo to improve pain, MMO, protrusion, and tenderness. Also, it was better than occlusal splint to improve pain, but not better than TENS and medication.Implications for rehabilitationLaser therapy was found to be good in improving pain, maximal mouth opening, jaw protrusion, and tenderness at the end of the treatment.For patients with all types of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) (myogenous, arthrogenous, and mixed), the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode or gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) laser, wavelength of 400-800 or 800-1500 nm, and a dosage <25 J/cm2.For patients with arthrogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: Diode laser and a wavelength between 400 and 800 nm.For patients with myogenous TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode laser, wavelength between 800 and 1500 nm, and dosage of <25 J/cm2.For patients with mixed TMDs, the following lasers and parameters are recommended: diode, GaAlAs, or infrared laser, a wavelength of 800-1500 nm, a dosage >100 J/cm2, and an application time between 15 and 30 s or >60 seconds.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

RESUMO Para tomar a melhor decisão clínica, é preciso compreender as evidências a respeito dos benefícios, malefícios e ônus das alternativas de manejo. Revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises que sejam realizadas com rigor oferecem resumos precisos das evidências. No entanto, é possível que esses resumos avaliem apenas as evidências cujo grau de certeza é baixo e, ao fazê-lo, ressaltem que provavelmente não existe uma decisão única que será a melhor para todos os pacientes. O Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) é um método sistemático e transparente para avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências em revisões sistemáticas. Neste artigo, abordaremos a importância de avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências; explicaremos como o sistema GRADE classifica o grau de certeza das evidências provenientes de revisões sistemáticas e apresentaremos o evidence to decision framework (quadro para a avaliação de evidências) do GRADE para decidir se as evidências se traduzem em recomendações fortes ou fracas nas diretrizes de prática clínica.

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: This study aimed to explore the prevalence and clinical risk factors in patients diagnosed with incidental prostate cancer (IPC) during certain surgeries (transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP], open prostatectomy [OP], and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate [HoLEP]) after clinically suspected benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Literature search of the MEDILINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify eligible studies published before June 2021. Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the prevalence and clinical risk factors of IPC were calculated using random or fixed-effect models. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amongst the 94.783 patients, IPC was detected in 24.715 (26.1%). Results showed that the chance of IPC detection (10%, 95% CI: 0.07-4.00; P<0.001; I2=97%) in patients treated with TURP is similar to that of patients treated with HoLEP (9%, 95% CI: 0.07-0.11; P<0.001; I2=81.4%). However, the pooled prevalence estimate of patients treated with OP was 11% (95% CI: −0.03-0.25; P=0.113; I2=99.1%) with no statistical significance. We observed increased incidence of IPC diagnosis after BPH surgery amongst patients with higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.23; P=0.004; I2=89%), whereas no effect of age (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.97-1.06; P=0.48; I2=78.8%) and prostate volume (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96-1.03; P=0.686; I2=80.5%) were observed. Conclusions: The prevalence of IPC was similar amongst patients undergoing TURP, HoLEP, and OP for presumed BPH. Interestingly, increased PSA level was the only independent predictor of increasing risk of IPC after BPH surgery rather than age and prostate volume. Hence, future research should focus on predictors which accurately foretell the progression of prostate cancer to determine the optimal treatment for managing patients with IPC after BPH surgery.

RESUMO

El crecimiento exponencial de evidencia disponible actualmente ha hecho necesario recopilar, filtrar, valorar críticamente y sintetizar la información biomédica para mantenerse actualizado. En este sentido, las revisiones sistemáticas constituyen una herramienta útil y pueden ser fuentes confiables para asistir a la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia. Definimos como revisiones sistemáticas a aquellas investigaciones secundarias o síntesis de evidencia focalizadas en una pregunta específica que, a partir de una metodología estructurada, permiten identificar, seleccionar, valorar críticamente y resumir los hallazgos de estudios relevantes. Las revisiones sistemáticas presentan varias ventajas potenciales, tales como la minimización de sesgos o la obtención de resultados de mayor precisión. La confiabilidad de la evidencia presentada en las revisiones sistemáticas está determinada, entre otros factores, por su calidad metodológica, pero también por la calidad de los estudios incluidos. Para realizar una revisión sistemática, se debe seguir una serie de pasos que incluyen la formulación de una pregunta de investigación a partir del formato PICO; una búsqueda bibliográfica exhaustiva; la selección de los estudios relevantes; la valoración crítica de los datos obtenidos a partir de los estudios incluidos; la síntesis de resultados, a menudo mediante métodos estadísticos (metanálisis); y finalmente una estimación de la certeza de evidencia para cada desenlace. En esta nota metodológica definiremos los conceptos básicos sobre revisiones sistemáticas, sus métodos y sus limitaciones.

The exponential growth of currently available evidence has made it necessary to collect, filter, critically appraise, and synthesize biomedical information to keep up to date. In this sense, systematic reviews are a helpful tool and can be reliable sources to assist in evidence-based decision-making. Systematic reviews are defined as secondary research or syntheses of evidence focused on a specific question that -- based on a structured methodology -- make it possible to identify, select, critically appraise, and summarize findings from relevant studies. Systematic reviews have several potential advantages, such as minimizing biases or obtaining more accurate results. The reliability of the evidence presented in systematic reviews is determined, amongst other factors, by the quality of their methodology and the included studies. To conduct a systematic review, a series of steps must be followed: the formulation of a research question using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format; an exhaustive literature search; the selection of relevant studies; the critical appraisal of the data obtained from the included studies; the synthesis of results, often using statistical methods (meta-analysis); and finally, estimating the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. In this methodological note, we will define the basic concepts of systematic reviews, their methods, and their limitations.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. Trial registration This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the prevalence and clinical risk factors in patients diagnosed with incidental prostate cancer (IPC) during certain surgeries (transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP], open prostatectomy [OP], and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate [HoLEP]) after clinically suspected benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search of the MEDILINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify eligible studies published before June 2021. Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the prevalence and clinical risk factors of IPC were calculated using random or fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amongst the 94.783 patients, IPC was detected in 24.715 (26.1%). Results showed that the chance of IPC detection (10%, 95% CI: 0.07-4.00; P<0.001; I2=97%) in patients treated with TURP is similar to that of patients treated with HoLEP (9%, 95% CI: 0.07-0.11; P<0.001; I2=81.4%). However, the pooled prevalence estimate of patients treated with OP was 11% (95% CI: -0.03-0.25; P=0.113; I2=99.1%) with no statistical significance. We observed increased incidence of IPC diagnosis after BPH surgery amongst patients with higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.23; P=0.004; I2=89%), whereas no effect of age (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.97-1.06; P=0.48; I2=78.8%) and prostate volume (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96-1.03; P=0.686; I2=80.5%) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IPC was similar amongst patients undergoing TURP, HoLEP, and OP for presumed BPH. Interestingly, increased PSA level was the only independent predictor of increasing risk of IPC after BPH surgery rather than age and prostate volume. Hence, future research should focus on predictors which accurately foretell the progression of prostate cancer to determine the optimal treatment for managing patients with IPC after BPH surgery.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Purpose: to present an overview protocol for systematic reviews to synthesize and describe available evidence on the effectiveness of nonsurgical treatments for trigeminal neuralgia. Methods: the protocol follows the method proposed by PRISMA-P guidelines for protocol reports. The search will be made in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, SpeechBITE, PeDRO, and the grey literature (Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), with no restriction on language or time of publication. A search strategy developed for MEDLINE will be adapted for each database. Two independent reviewers will screen the articles by title and abstract. Then, they will read the full texts of included articles, following the eligibility criteria. In case of disagreements, a third reviewer will come to a consensus. The data will be extracted with a standardized form. Information on the risk of bias and GRADE assessment will be recorded. AMSTAR-2 will assess the overall result reliability of the systematic reviews. Results will be presented in a flowchart, tables, and a narrative description. Final Considerations: once carried out, this protocol will describe the current body of research on the topic and identify existing gaps on the basis of evidence.

RESUMO Objetivo: apresentar um protocolo de Overview das revisões sistemáticas (RSs) para sintetizar e descrever evidências disponíveis sobre a efetividade dos tratamentos não cirúrgicos na neuralgia do trigêmeo. Métodos: o protocolo seguirá o método proposto pelas diretrizes do PRISMA-P para relato de protocolos. A busca será realizada nas bases de dados eletrônicas: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, COCHRANE, Web of Science, Scopus, SpeechBITE, PeDRO, além de consulta à literatura cinzenta (Google Scholar e ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), sem restrições de idioma ou período de publicação. Uma estratégia de busca foi desenvolvida para MEDLINE e será adaptada para cada base de dados. O rastreio dos artigos pelo título e resumo será realizado por dois revisores independentes. Em seguida, farão leitura dos textos completos dos artigos incluídos, conforme os critérios de elegibilidade. Em discordância, um terceiro revisor fará o consenso. Os dados serão extraídos por meio de um formulário padronizado. Serão registradas informações de risco de viés e avaliação do GRADE. A ferramenta AMSTAR II avaliará a confiança geral dos resultados das RSs. Os resultados serão apresentados em um fluxograma, tabelas e descrição narrativa. Considerações Finais: a execução deste protocolo descreverá o corpo atual de pesquisa sobre o tema e identificará lacunas existentes na base de evidências.

RESUMO

Abstract Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is among the most prevalent chronic autoimmune and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The aim of this study was to establish a pooled estimate of the RA prevalence in South America by means of a meta-analysis of the available epidemiologic studies. Systematic searches in PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (updated May 2019) were done followed by a systematic grey literature search to identify original research articles and reports, published after 2000, providing data of RA prevalence in any South American country. Proportion meta-analysis of weighted pooled was performed, with between-trial heterogeneity assessed by the inconsistency relative index. Sensitivity analyses and sub-group analyses were also done. A total of 25 articles, representing 27 population-based studies were included. Pooled prevalence of RA resulted in 0.48% with 591,981 cases in a population of 114,537,812 individuals (I2=99%). Brazil and Colombia presented the lowest rates of RA prevalence 0.22%, and 0.24%, respectively. RA prevalence in indigenous population was higher 1.45%, and studies using COPCORD method reported also the highest rates 1.07%.

Resumo A artrite reumatóide (AR) está entre as doenças autoimunes e inflamatórias crônicas mais prevalentes no mundo. O objetivo deste estudo foi estabelecer uma estimativa conjunta da prevalência da AR na América do Sul por meio de uma meta-análise dos estudos epidemiológicos disponíveis. Buscas sistemáticas nas bases de dados PubMed, Lilacs, SciELO, Scopus e Web of Science (atualizado em maio de 2019) foram seguidas por uma busca sistemática na literatura cinzenta para identificar artigos e relatórios de pesquisa originais, publicados após 2000, fornecendo dados de prevalência de AR em qualquer país da América do Sul. Foi realizada uma meta-análise da proporção de dados agrupados ponderados, com heterogeneidade entre experimentos avaliada pelo índice relativo de inconsistência. Análises de sensibilidade e de subgrupos também foram realizadas. Foram incluídos um total de 25 artigos, representando 27 estudos de base populacional. A prevalência agrupada de AR resultou em 0,48% com 591.981 casos em uma população de 114.537.812 indivíduos (I2=99%). Brasil e Colômbia apresentaram as menores taxas de prevalência de AR 0,22% e 0,24%, respectivamente. A prevalência da AR na população indígena foi maior 1,45%, e estudos pelo método COPCORD relataram também as maiores taxas 1,07%.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: This meta-analysis is the first to evaluate the associations of circulating and dietary intake of vitamin D with risk of risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our findings showed that higher circulating vitamin D level and dietary vitamin D intake were associated with a reduced risk of RCC. The possible explanation might be attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect, inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing cell differentiation and apoptosis. Materials and Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from their inception points through December 2018 for observational studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 9 publications were included in this meta-analysis. An overall analysis of the highest versus lowest intake levels revealed that circulating vitamin D level was protectively associated with risk of RCC 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.89, P=0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=38.8%, P=0.162). In addition, dietary vitamin D intake was associated with a reduced risk of RCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 75-0.99, P=0.030). Statistical heterogeneity was not identified (I2=28.8%, P=0.199). Subgroup analyses results showed the gender differences, and the associations were significant in results with women participants (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88) and case-control studies (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95). Conclusion: Higher circulating vitamin D level and higher dietary vitamin D intake both might be associated with a reduced risk of RCC. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required in the future to confirm our results.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Introduction Making decisions based on evidence has been a challenge for health professionals, given the need to have the tools and skills to carry out a critical appraisal of the evidence and assess the validity of the results. Systematic reviews of the literature (SRL) have been used widely to answer questions in the clinical field. Tools have been developed that support the appraisal of the quality of the studies. AMSTAR is one of these, validated and supported by reproducible evidence, which guides the methodological quality of the SRL. Objectives To show a historical, theoretical and practical guide for critical assessment of systematic reviews using AMSTAR to guide the argumental bases for their use according to the components of this methodological structure in health research, and to provide practical examples of how to apply this checklist. Methods We conducted a non-exhaustive review of literature in Pubmed and Cochrane Library using "AMSTAR" and "Systematic Reviews" as free terms without language or publication date limit; we also collected information from experts in the evaluation of the quality of the evidence. Conclusions AMSTAR is an instrument used, validated and supported by reproducible evidence for the evaluation of the internal validity of systematic reviews of the literature. It consists of 16 items that assess the overall methodological quality of a SRL. It is currently used indiscriminately and favorably, but it is not exempt from limitations and future updates based on new reproducibility and validation studies.

Resumen Introducción Tomar decisiones basadas en la evidencia ha sido un reto para profesionales de la salud; se requiere tener herramientas y habilidades para apreciar la evidencia críticamente y evaluar la validez de los resultados. Las revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura (RSL) han sido muy usadas para dar respuesta a preguntas del ámbito clínico. Se han desarrollado herramientas que apoyan la apreciación de la calidad de los estudios. El AMSTAR es una de estas, validada y soportada por evidencia reproducible que orienta la calidad metodológica de las RSL. Objetivos Mostrar un abordaje histórico, teórico y de guía práctica para la apreciación crítica de las revisiones sistemáticas con el AMSTAR, orientar las bases argumentales para su uso, según los componentes de esta estructura metodológica en investigación en salud, y proporcionar ejemplos prácticos sobre cómo aplicar esta lista de chequeo. Métodos Realizamos una revisión no exhaustiva de literatura en PubMed y The Cochrane Library con los términos libres "AMSTAR" y "revisiones sistemáticas'', sin límite de idioma o año de publicación; también, recolectamos información de expertos en evaluación de la calidad de la evidencia. Conclusiones El AMSTAR es un instrumento validado y soportado por evidencia reproducible para la evaluación de la validez interna de las revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura. Consiste en 16 ítems que evalúan de manera global la calidad metodológica de una RSL. Actualmente, se usa de manera indiscriminada y predilecta, pero no está exenta de limitaciones y futuras actualizaciones basadas en nuevos estudios de reproducibilidad y validación.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis is the first to evaluate the associations of circulating and dietary intake of vitamin D with risk of risk of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Our findings showed that higher circulating vitamin D level and dietary vitamin D intake were associated with a reduced risk of RCC. The possible explanation might be attributed to the anti-inflammatory effect, inhibiting cell proliferation, inducing cell differentiation and apoptosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from their inception points through December 2018 for observational studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 9 publications were included in this meta-analysis. An overall analysis of the highest versus lowest intake levels revealed that circulating vitamin D level was protectively associated with risk of RCC 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.89, P=0.001), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=38.8%, P=0.162). In addition, dietary vitamin D intake was associated with a reduced risk of RCC (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 75-0.99, P=0.030). Statistical heterogeneity was not identified (I2=28.8%, P=0.199). Subgroup analyses results showed the gender differences, and the associations were significant in results with women participants (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88) and case-control studies (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67-0.95). CONCLUSION: Higher circulating vitamin D level and higher dietary vitamin D intake both might be associated with a reduced risk of RCC. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required in the future to confirm our results.

Assuntos