RESUMEN
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of umbilical venous catheterization (UVC) by using different methods to estimate the insertion depth.Methods:PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library, CBM (SinoMed), CNKI, VIP Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database were electronically searched for literature on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods for estimating the insertion depth of UVC. The search period was from the establishment date of the above databases to April 15th, 2022. If 2 or more studies were available for each pairwise comparison, a meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. However, if only 1 study was included for each pairwise comparison, SPSS 26.0 statistical software is used for statistical analysis using the chi-square test.Results:A total of 9 RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis, with a total of 1 281 infants, using 6 methods for estimating the depth of UVC. Compared with the Shukla formula, the Dunn method showed a statistically significant improvement in the correct place rate at the first UVC attempt ( RR=1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.47, P=0.002). When comparing the Dunn method with the revised Shukla formula, the difference in the correct place rate at the first UVC attempt was statistically significant (21.4% vs. 33.5%, χ2=7.24, P=0.007). There was no statistically significant difference in the correct place rate at the first UVC attempt between the Dunn method and the formula based on BW, the JSS formula and the revised Shukla formula, and the method based on anatomical marks and the Shukla formula. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of UVC complications between the Dunn method and the Shukla formula, and between the method based on anatomical marks and the Shukla formula. Conclusions:Comparing to Shukla formula, Dunn method has a higher correct place rate at the first attempt. The incidence of complications is similar between the different pairwise comparison methods.
RESUMEN
Objective:To systematically evaluate the safety of family integrated care (FICare) model in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Methods:Multiple medical databases were searched for clinical studies on FICare in NICU published from January 1, 2010 to May 28, 2022. The quality of the literature was evaluated using Risk?of?Bias?2 tool?and cohort evaluation criteria from the Cochrane Systematic Evaluation Manual depending on the types of studies included. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.Results:Six randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies were included for meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the traditional care model, FICare model did not increase the risk of nosocomial infection ( RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.46-1.24, P=0.27) and unstable medical conditions ( RR=0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22, P=0.40). No significant difference existed in the all-cause mortality between FICare and traditional care ( RR=2.74, 95% CI 0.88-8.57, P=0.08). Conclusions:FICare does not increase the risk of nosocomial infection, unstable medical conditions and adverse events compared with traditional care. It is safe and feasible to implement FICare in NICU.