west china medical publishers
Author
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Author "CHENGuang-yu" 2 results
  • Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty versus Open Pyeloplasty for Ureterpelvic Junction Obstruction: A Systematic Review

    ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) versus open pyeloplasty (OP) for patients with ureterpelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2015), Sciverse, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI from inception to Dec., 2015, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical controlled trials (CCTs) about LP versus OP for UPJO patients. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 38 studies including 8 RCTs and 30 CCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis based on RCTs showed that, there were no significant differences in successful operation rate (OR=0.50, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.24, P=0.13) and the incidence of postoperative complications (OR=1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.31, P=0.62) between the OP group and the LP group; The operation time of the OP group was shorter than that of the LP group (MD=62.07, 95%CI 3.94 to 120.19, P=0.04), but this difference was not found in subgroup analysis of retroperitoneal approach (MD=49.99, 95%CI -23.69 to 123.67, P=0.18); The hospital stay of the LP group was shorter than that of the OP group (MD=-3.96, 95%CI -4.92 to -2.99, P<0.0001). The results of meta-analysis based on CCTs showed that, there was no significant difference in successful operation rate between two groups (OR=1.34, 95%CI 0.84 to 2.16, P=0.22), and similar results were found in subgroup analysis of transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approaches; The incidence of postoperative complications of the LP group was shorter than that of the OP group (OR=0.51, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.69, P<0.0001); The hospital stay of the LP group was shorter than that of the OP group (MD=-3.87, 95%CI -4.90 to -2.83, P<0.00001) and similar result was found in subgroup analysis of transperitoneal approach (MD=-4.08, 95%CI -5.21 to -2.95, P<0.0001); There was no significant difference between two groups in operation time (MD=24.15, 95%CI -7.56 to 55.87, P=0.14). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that, the successful operation rate between LP and OP operations is similar, but the LP operation has less incidence of postoperative complication and shorter hospital stay. Due to limited quality of the included studies, the above conclusion needs more high quality studies to verify.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-analyses of Transurethral Procedure for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

    ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews/Meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of transurethral procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MethodWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 12, 2014), Sciverse, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to December 2014 to collect SRs/MAs of transurethral procedure about BPH. Two reviewers independently screened literature and assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs by AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. ResultsA total of 33 SRs/MAs were included. The results of qualitative analysis showed that:the main methodological weakness of included SRs/MAs included the lack of protocol, disappropriate conclusion formulation, the lack of publication bias assessment, and the lack of stating the conflict of interest. The average score of AMSTAR scale was 6.27±2.14. There were 11 items in PRISMA checklist with coincidence rate over 80%, 8 items between 50% to 80%, and 8 items less than 50%. ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of SR/MA of transurethral procedure for BHP is low, and that may decrease the reliability and value of results from SRs/MAs in the field. Future SRs/MAs should strictly follow the related reporting guidelines in order to improve the methodological and reporting quality, so as to provide more reliable evidence for clinical decision.

    Release date: Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content