摘要
目的通过Meta分析方法探讨社区综合干预对慢性便秘疗效的影响。方法检索国内主要医学数据库,包括中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)(1978—2017年)、维普网(VIP)(1989—2017年)、中国知网(CNKI)(1979—2017年)、万方数据知识服务平台(1990—2017年),Pub Med/Medline(1966—2017年)。筛选采用社区综合性干预为干预方法的随机对照试验。提取文献相关信息,并评价纳入文献质量。结果纳入6篇文献,其中干预组587例,对照组575例。Meta分析结果显示,干预组治疗有效率高于对照组[相对危险度(RR)=1.50,95%CI(1.18,1.92),P<0.001]。治疗3个月时,干预组每周排便次数高于对照组、大便性状评分低于对照组、排便困难程度评分低于对照组[加权均数差(WMD)=0.30,95%CI(0.21,0.39),P<0.001;WMD=-1.51,95%CI(-2.09,-0.92),P<0.001;WMD=-0.57,95%CI(-0.67,-0.48),P<0.001]。治疗6个月时,干预组每周排便次数高于对照组、大便性状评分低于对照组、排便困难程度评分低于对照组[WMD=1.65,95%CI(1.55,1.75),P<0.001;WMD=-0.69,95%CI(-0.96,-0.41),P<0.001;WMD=-0.92,95%CI(-1.31,-0.52),P<0.001]。结论社区综合干预对慢性便秘的疗效优于单纯泄剂治疗。
Objective To explore the effect of comprehensive community intervention on chronic constipation by Meta-analysis. Methods The main domestic medical databases were searched, including China biomedical literature database（ CBM）（ from 1978 to 2017）,VIP（ from 1989 to 2017）,CNKI（ from 1979 to 2017）,Wanfang data knowledge service platform（ from 1990 to 2017） and Pub Med/Medline（ from 1966 to 2017）. Randomized controlled trials using general comprehensive intervention as intervention method were screened. Literature related information was extracted and the quality of the included literature was evaluated. Results Finally 6 articles were included,including 587 cases in the intervention group and575 cases in the control group. The Meta-analysis result showed that the effective rate of treatment in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group [RR = 1. 50,95% CI（ 1. 18,1. 92）, P〈0. 001 ]. After 3 months＇ treatment, the number of defecation in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group,and the score of defecation traits was lower than that of the control group,and the score of defecation difficulty was lower than that of the control group [WMD = 0. 30,95% CI（ 0. 21,0. 39）,P〈0. 001; WMD =-1. 51,95% CI（-2. 09,-0. 92）,P〈0. 001; WMD =-0. 57,95% CI（-0. 67,-0. 48）,P〈0. 001]. After 6 months＇ treatment,the number of defecation in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group, and the score of defecation traits was lower than that of the control group, and the score of defecation difficulty was lower than that of the control group [WMD = 1. 65,95% CI（ 1. 55,1. 75）, P〈0. 001; WMD=-0. 69,95% CI（-0. 96,-0. 41）, P〈0. 001; WMD =-0. 92, 95% CI（-1. 31,-0. 52）, P〈0. 001 ].Conclusion Comprehensive community intervention has a better curative effect on chronic constipation than single purgative therapy.
作者
金花
钱洁
于德华
JIN Hua QIAN Jie YU De-hua(Department of General Practice, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200090, China Department of Clinical Psychology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200090, China Department of General Practice, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200090, China)
出处
《中国全科医学》
CAS
北大核心
2017年第21期2573-2577,共5页
Chinese General Practice
基金
上海市卫生和计划生育委员会科研课题(201440344)
上海市卫生计生系统重要薄弱学科建设计划(2015ZB0603)
关键词
便秘
社区干预
治疗
META分析
Constipation
Community intervention
Therapy
Meta-analysis
