update journal reading stase bedah
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF ANTIBIOTICS COMPARED WITH
APPENDICECTOMY FOR TREATMENT OF UNCOMPLICATED ACUTE
APPENDICITIS:META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMISED
CONTROLLED TRIALS
Krishna K Varadhan, Keith R Neal, Dileep N Lobo
BMJ April 2012
![Page 2: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
BACKGROUND Appendicitis is common infection that occur in abdomen. Appendicectomy has been the mainstay for the
treatment for acute appendicitis The advent of laparoscopic surgery and the low
threshold for operative intervention have led to a risk of high negative appendicectomy rates with unnecessary surgery related morbidity.
Antibiotic treatment was often considered as a bridge to surgery in patients with suspected appendicitis but no clear indications for appendicectomy such as signs of perforation or peritonitis. Less morbidity associated with antibiotic treatment than surgery in uncomplicated acute appendicitis
![Page 3: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
OBJECTIVE
To compare the safety and efficacy of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis
![Page 4: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
METHOD
Inclusion Criteria RCTs comparing antibiotic treatment with
appendicectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adult patients
RCTs with well defined diagnostic and treatment protocols which reported at least two of the outcome measures (complications, treatmet efficacy, length of stay, readmissions) published between January 1996 – December 2011
![Page 5: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Exclusion Criteria Non-randomised studies, retrospective
studies, case series studies Studies that reported outcomes in patients
with complicated appendicitis (local or contained perforation with an appendicular abscess or mass).
![Page 6: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Methods
Assesing the methodological quality of the RCTs using method of randomisation, concealment of allocation, blinding, description of dropouts and withdrawals, intention to treat analysis, and duration of follow-up.
Evaluation for methodological quality of the RCTs and to rate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations of the meta-analysis using GRADE (the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation ) system, as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.
![Page 7: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The GRADE system assess the RCTs across five main domains for each outcome: limitations of the study design and execution; inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision of results; and publication bias.
Accordingly, the recommendation for either antibiotic treatment or appendicectomy was graded as very low, low, moderate, or high.
![Page 8: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Outcome measure
The primary outcome measure was complications.
The secondary outcome measures were efficacy of treatment, length of stay, and incidence of complicated appendicitis and readmissions.
![Page 9: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Outcome measure
![Page 10: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Data Collection &Statistical Analysis The meta analysis was done using Review
Manager version 5.1 software Mantel-Haenszel method was used to combine
the summary statistic and assessed the statistical heterogeneity by using the I2 method alongside the χ2 P value.
Random effect model was used to provide a conservative estimate of the results.
We considered the results to be statistically significant at the P<0.05 level if the 95% confidence interval did not include the value .
![Page 11: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Result Four randomised controlled trials with a total of
900 patients (470 antibiotic treatment, 430 appendicectomy) met the inclusion criteria.
Antibiotic treatment was associated with a 63% (277/438) success rate at one year.
There is a relative risk reduction of 31% for antibiotic treatment compared with appendicectomy (risk ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.89); I2=0%; P=0.004).
No significant differences were seen for treatment efficacy or length of stay.
![Page 12: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Table 1. Summary of outcome
![Page 13: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Table 2. GRADE analysis: antibiotics versus appendicetomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis—quality assessment
![Page 14: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Limitations of the Study
The major confounders that may have had an influence on the outcomes are:
diagnosis of appendicitistype and duration of antibiotic treatmentreporting of complications,and planned discharge after either antibiotic
treatment or appendicectomy.
![Page 15: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
CONCLUSION
Antibiotics can be used safely as primary treatment in patients presenting with acute uncomplicated appendicitis
![Page 16: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
The validity of the research Interpretation of the result Applicability of the result
![Page 17: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
I. EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITYOF THE REVIEW
1. Is the clinical question clearly focused with regard to: the population?
Yes people with acute uncomplicated appendicitis
the intervention?
Yes antibiotics versus appendicectomy the outcome measures?
Yes complications, length of stay, readmissions, treatment efficacy
![Page 18: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
2. Are the criteria for the selection of the studies to be included in the review in accordance with: the specifications of the foregoing question in
regard to populations, interventions, and results?
Yes the type of research design that will be chosen?
Yes RCT
![Page 19: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
3. Is the literature search method clearly specified?
Yes the authors used the search strategy
developed by the Cochrane Collaboration Group Is there a high probability that some
relevant studies may have been omitted?
No
![Page 20: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
4. Have the identified studies been evaluated for methodological quality?
Yes GRADE system: systematic assessments of all RCTs across five main domains for each outcome: limitations of the study design and execution; inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision of results; and publication bias
![Page 21: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
5. Was the methodological quality evaluation carried out by more than one person independently, and the degree of agreement between them established?
Yes the 1st & 2nd author search and evaluate the sources of the meta analysis; any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the 3rd author
![Page 22: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
II. INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW
1. Were the results consistent from one study to another?
Yes
2. What were the overall results of the review?
Antibiotic therapy relative risk reduction of 31% (risk ratio 0.69); no significant differences in treatment efficacy or length of stay.
![Page 23: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
3. How precise were the results?
95% CI 0.54 – 0.89, p=0.004
![Page 24: Update Journal Reading Stase Bedah](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061509/55cf9c0c550346d033a85f2f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
III. APPLICABILITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
1. Are my patients similar to the patients included in the original studies? Yes
2. Is the intervention feasible in my setting? Yes
3. Have all the clinically relevant results been taken into consideration? Yes
4. Do the benefits outweigh the potential harm?
Yes