European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal–paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2–4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12–15 L in four to five exchanges over 1–2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.     

针灸治疗带状疱疹及其后遗症的系统评价再评价＊

目的 根据当今针灸治疗带状疱疹（HZ）及其后遗症的meta分析/系统评价（MA/SR），将其方法学及证据质量进行评价，以期为针灸治疗带状疱疹及其后遗症提供临床依据。方法 对中国知网（CNKI），万方（Wanfang）和维普（VIP）数据库，中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM），PubMed，Embase，Cochrane Library，Web of Science 8个数据库进行检索，收集有关针灸治疗带状疱疹及其后遗症的MAs/SRs，运用AMSTAR对MAs/SRs进行方法学质量评价，同时采用GRADE系统对证据质量进行评价分级。结果 本文共纳入20篇MAs/SRs，主要结论为针灸治疗HZ及其后遗症具有有效性和安全性。根据AMSTAR显示，20篇MAs/SRs中，有1个高质量研究，19个中等质量研究，无低等质量研究。GRADE评级显示，针灸对于带状疱疹及其后遗症的MAs/SRs具有较低的证据质量。所有结局指标中共有27个结局指标为极低质量，19个为低质量，12个为中等质量，无高质量的证据。结论 当前MAs/SRs显示，针灸对带状疱疹及其后遗症具有一定疗效和安全性，方法学质量属于中高级，但证据质量级别属于低级，其主要原因为原始研究质量不佳所致。     

Endoscopic Treatment of Large Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

1. Download : Download high-res image (589KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Using the evidence to decision frameworks to formulate the direction and strength of recommendations for adapted guidelines of physical restraints in critical care: A Delphi study

BackgroundIt has been shown that the use of physical restraints has negative physiological and psychological impacts on critically ill patients. The development of clinical practice guidelines is necessary for minimizing the use of physical restraints.ObjectiveAs part of a guideline adaptation project, this study aimed to formulate the direction and strength of recommendations for adapted guidelines of physical restraints in critical care.MethodsLiterature retrieval of guidelines and systematic reviews was performed and guideline steering committee discussions were conducted to develop an inquiry questionnaire. From February to April 2022, a two-round study, including 27 multidisciplinary experts, was conducted using the evidence to decision frameworks and Delphi methods.ResultsThe 27 experts were from 22 of the 33 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions of mainland China. For the first and second questionnaires, the recovery rates were 85.7% and 100%, respectively. In the first and second rounds, the average authoritative coefficients were 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. Regarding Kendall W values, the values were 0.555 and 0.120, respectively. A consensus was reached on 15 recommendations, including one strong recommendation, seven conditional recommendations and seven good practice statements.ConclusionIn the two rounds of consultations, a consensus was reached on 15 recommendations for the adapted physical restraint guidelines in critical care through the evidence to decision frameworks and Delphi methods. Recommendations in the adapted physical restraint guidelines are related to institutional and educational interventions, risk assessment, the management of patients’ unsafe behaviours, pain, mechanical ventilation, sleep, family engagement, mobility, sedation, and delirium.Implications for Clinical PracticeBased on our recommendations, we suggest nurses develop a physical restraint education bundle.     

针刺治疗单纯性肥胖系统评价的再评价＊

目的 对针刺治疗单纯性肥胖的系统评价进行再评价研究，为针刺临床循证决策提供参考。方法 计算机检索主要的中英文电子文献数据库（PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI等），收集自建库至2019年2月28日关于针刺干预单纯性肥胖的系统评价。本研究采用AMASTAR 2工具评价纳入系统评价的方法学质量，使用GRADE系统对纳入系统评价的结局指标进行证据质量分级。借助Stata 14.0软件进行统计分析。结果 共纳入11篇系统评价。AMSTAR 2评价结果显示，9篇为极低质量，2篇为低质量。存在问题最多的条目分别为实施前未确定研究方法、未提供排除文献清单及未考虑单个研究的偏倚风险。GRADE证据分级提示，34个结局指标为低或极低质量，5个结局指标为中等质量，无高级别证据。导致降级最主要的因素为局限性，其次为发表偏倚、不一致性。结论 当前针刺治疗单纯性肥胖患者的系统评价方法学质量不高，结局指标的可靠程度相对较低。因此，今后仍需开展高质量的随机对照试验来证实针刺治疗单纯性肥胖的疗效和安全性，并应规范针刺相关临床研究的方法学质量和报告质量，以期提高证据质量水平。     

芪苈强心胶囊对射血分数保留心力衰竭患者生活质量影响的Meta分析

[目的]系统评价芪苈强心胶囊对射血分数保留心力衰竭(HFpEF)患者生活质量影响的有效性及安全性,并对证据质量等级进行评价.[方法]计算机检索中国知网数据库(CNKI)、万方数据库(WanFang Data)、维普资讯中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)、中国生物医学文献数据库(SinoMed)、PubMed、Embase和C...     

针刺治疗女性不孕症系统评价的再评价＊

目的 评价针刺治疗女性不孕症系统评价的方法学质量和结局指标的可靠程度。方法 通过检索Cochrane Library、Pubmed、Web of science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献库、维普网和万方数据库，收集针刺治疗女性不孕症的系统评价/Meta分析。采用AMSTAR 2量表评价纳入研究的方法学质量，运用GRADE系统评价结局指标的质量分级。结果 共纳入13篇系统评价，AMSTAR 2评定结果仅1篇方法学质量为中等级，5篇低等级，7篇极低等级。GRADE评级结果显示，中等质量结局指标5个，低质量15个，极低质量15个。结论 目前针刺治疗女性不孕症与空白对照或假/安慰针刺和西药促排相比可提高临床妊娠率，尤其在取卵日前后或ET（Embryo-transfer）日及前后可以增加临床妊娠率，而对其他指标没有体现明显优势，但其方法学质量和结局指标的可靠程度相对较低，期待未来有更多高质量的研究提供可靠的临床证据。