8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Appraising and highlighting gaps among prophylactic intervention studies for reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a leading perioperative morbidity outcome following general anaesthesia. This systematic review aims to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence synthesis studies of prophylactic interventions that reduce the incidence of paediatric PONV, thereby highlighting knowledge gaps and avenues of future research.

          Design

          Systematic review using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool and the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool.

          Data sources

          Seven major databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to 23 September 2022.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Evidence synthesis studies of only randomised controlled trials that explored prophylactic interventions for PONV in children undergoing general anaesthesia.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          Following screening process by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters and details of interventions. Eligible studies were categorised into ‘pharmacological’ and ‘non-pharmacological’ groups and high-risk surgical groups of ‘strabismus’ and ‘tonsillectomy’ for qualitative synthesis.

          Results

          There were 20 evidence synthesis reviews (17 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews, 1 network meta-analysis): 14 investigated pharmacological PONV prophylaxis in children, 5 investigated non-pharmacological interventions, 1 studied both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis agents, for example, dexamethasone (relative risk (RR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT 3) antagonists (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20) and α 2-adrenoreceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.54), are more effective than placebo. A combination of pharmacological agents provided superior efficacy to monotherapy, particularly dexamethasone and 5-HT 3 antagonists (RR 0.21, 95% credible interval 0.15 to 0.28). Acustimulation practice was consistently favourable in preventing PONV compared with placebo (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52).

          Conclusion

          Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of paediatric PONV, with the efficacy increased further by using combination pharmacotherapy. Further research must compare multiple treatment arms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxes for PONV to identify the optimal multimodal prophylaxis regimen.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42021236698.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed

              Objective To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). Study Design and Setting We used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. Results ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews (“reviews of reviews”), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. Conclusions ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                22 February 2024
                : 14
                : 2
                : e070775
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine , Ringgold_7979The Hospital for Sick Children , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Anaesthesia , The Children’s Hospital at Westmead , Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
                [3 ]Ringgold_7938University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Pediatric Anesthesia , Ringgold_10040Montreal Children’s Hospital , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [5 ]departmentLibrary and Information Services , Ringgold_7989University Health Network , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ]Ringgold_483367SickKids Research Institute , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kazuyoshi Aoyama; kazu.aoyama@ 123456utoronto.ca

                EP and JN are joint first authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7502-0896
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-070775
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070775
                10884241
                38388499
                a03e5c6a-ea60-4974-a098-373b98cb6f17
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 December 2022
                : 06 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Outcomes Research Award, The Hospital for Sick Children;
                Award ID: 2020-2021
                Funded by: Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program, The Hospital for Sick Children;
                Award ID: 2019-2020
                Categories
                Anaesthesia
                1506
                1682
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                paediatric anaesthesia,anaesthesia in otolaryngology,anaesthesia in ophthalmology
                Medicine
                paediatric anaesthesia, anaesthesia in otolaryngology, anaesthesia in ophthalmology

                Comments

                Comment on this article