METHODS: The study was registered and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched by the study authors. Identified guidelines were graded according to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.
RESULTS: Database and internet searches identified 1006 results. After applying exclusion criteria, 28 guidelines were included. The use of pSAE was recommended in 15 guidelines (54%). This included 6 out of 9 guidelines that were high quality (66.7%), 4 out of 9 guidelines that were moderate quality (44.4%), and 3 out of 10 (30%) guidelines that were low quality, p = 0.275.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that recommendation of pSAE is more common in guidelines which are of high quality. However, there is vast heterogeneity of recommended practice guidelines, likely based on individual trauma systems rather than the available evidence. This reflects biases with interpretation of data and lack of multidisciplinary system inputs, including from interventional radiologists.
方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)声明的首选报告项目注册和报告研究。Medline,PubMed,科克伦,Embase,研究作者对GoogleScholar进行了搜索。确定的指南根据评估指南研究与评估II(AGREE-II)工具进行了分级。
结果:数据库和互联网搜索确定了1006个结果。应用排除标准后,包括28条准则。在15个指南中推荐使用pSAE(54%)。这包括9份高质量指南中的6份(66.7%),9个准则中有4个是中等质量的(44.4%),和3的10(30%)的低质量指南,p=0.275。
结论:本系统评价显示,pSAE的推荐在高质量的指南中更为常见。然而,推荐的实践指南存在巨大的异质性,可能是基于个人创伤系统,而不是现有证据。这反映了对数据解释的偏见和缺乏多学科系统输入,包括介入放射科医生.