Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Nephrol ; 25(1): 99, 2024 Mar 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38493084

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patient experiences and survival outcomes can be influenced by the circumstances related to dialysis initiation and subsequent modality choices. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the rate and reasons for peritoneal dialysis (PD) dropout following haemodialysis (HD) to PD switch. METHOD: This systematic review conducted searches in four databases, including Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (study ID: CRD42023405718). Outcomes included factors leading to the switch from HD to PD, the rate and reasons for PD dropout and mortality difference in two groups (PD first group versus HD to PD group). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and the GRADE tool were used to assess quality. RESULTS: 4971 papers were detected, and 13 studies were included. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in PD dropout in the PD first group (OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.61, 1.09; I2 = 83%; P = 0.16), however, there was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of mortality (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.92; I2 = 73%; P = 0.03) compared to the HD to PD group. The primary reasons for HD to PD switch, included vascular access failure, patient preference, social issues, and cardiovascular disease. Causes for PD dropout differed between the two groups, but inadequate dialysis and peritonitis were the main reasons for PD dropout in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to the PD first group, a previous HD history may not impact PD dropout rates for patients, but it could impact mortality in the HD to PD group. The reasons for PD dropout differed between the two groups, with no statistical differences. Psychosocial reasons for PD dropout are valuable to further research. Additionally, establishing a consensus on the definition of PD dropout is crucial for future studies.

2.
J Diabetes Investig ; 15(4): 500-516, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38102930

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the gold standard for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, screening practices were reevaluated due to the risk of infection associated with the prolonged hospital visit required for the OGTT. Some countries have published novel screening protocols for GDM, suggesting the utilization of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), random plasma glucose (RPG), or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in favor of OGTTs during the pandemic. Therefore, differences in screening methods before and after the epidemic need to be examined. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out across five electronic databases (Cinahl, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science) between 2016 and 2023. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies was used to evaluate the quality of included papers. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible studies were included. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the OGTT was the recommended measure to screen GDM, internationally based on various official guidelines. During the pandemic, it was recommended that HbA1c or FPG, or RPG be used as a substitute for OGTTs. However, the new methods have low sensitivity, may not reflect accurately the prevalence of GDM, and may lead to many false-negative results in women and to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: The new screening methods for GDM have poor accuracy and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Comparatively, targeted screening tests to detect GDM according to the risk level are more effective in an emergency. In the future, the alternatives to OGTTs still need to be further explored in more depth.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA