Dataset Information

Comparison of the Safety of Outpatient Cervical Disc Replacement With Inpatient Cervical Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Study design

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives

Outpatient cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been performed with an increasing trend in recent years. However, the safety profile surrounding outpatient CDR remains insufficient. The present study systematically reviewed the current studies about outpatient CDR and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the current evidence on the safety of outpatient CDR as a comparison with the inpatient CDR.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases comprehensively up to April 2020. Patient demographic data, overall complication, readmission, returning to the operation room, operating time were analyzed with the Stata 14 software and R 3.4.4 software.

Results

Nine retrospective studies were included. Patients underwent outpatient CDR were significantly younger (mean difference [MD] = -1.97; 95% CI -3.80 to -0.15; P = .034) and had lower prevalence of hypertension (OR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.87; P = .002) compared with inpatient CDR. The pooled prevalence of overall complication was 0.51% (95% CI 0.10% to 1.13%) for outpatient CDR. Outpatient CDR had a 59% reduction in risk of developing complications (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). Outpatient CDR showed significantly shorter operating time (MD = -18.37; 95% CI -25.96 to -10.77; P < .001). The readmission and reoperation rate were similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

There is a lack of prospective studies on the safety of outpatient CDR. However, current evidence shows outpatient CDR can be safely performed under careful patient selection. High-quality, large prospective studies are needed to demonstrate the generalizability of this study.

SUBMITTER: Wang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:As the number of indications for labour induction continue to increase, the focus has shifted to performing these procedures in an outpatient setting. This study aims to systematically review published data from randomized controlled trials that compare outpatient with inpatient labour induction, to ascertain the role of outpatient labour induction for low-risk pregnancies. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review wherein we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis Previews®, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported on maternal, fetal and resource-related outcomes following outpatient versus inpatient labour induction. Pooled incidences and mean differences were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the method of induction. RESULTS:Of the 588 records identified, 12 publications, representing nine independent randomized controlled trials conducted in Australia, Europe and North America, were included. These reported on 2615 cases of labour induction (1320 outpatients versus 1295 inpatients). Overall, apart from a higher number of suspicious fetal heart rate tracings [RR?=?1.43 (1.10, 1.86)] and a shorter mean length of hospital stay [MD?=?282.48?min (160.23, 404.73) shorter] in the outpatient group, there were no differences in delivery method, adverse outcomes or resource-use between the two arms. On subgroup analysis, when comparing the use of balloon catheters in both arms, those induced as outpatients had fewer caesarean deliveries [RR?=?0.52 (0.30, 0.90)], a shorter admission-to-delivery interval [MD?=?370.86?min (19.19, 722.54) shorter], and a shorter induction to delivery interval [MD?=?330.42?min (120.13, 540.71) shorter]. CONCLUSION:Outpatient labour induction in resource-rich settings is at least as effective and safe, in carefully selected patient populations, when compared with inpatient labour induction. Whether outpatient labour induction results in lower rates of caesarean deliveries needs to be explored further. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This systematic review was prospectively registered in Prospero ( CRD42019118049 ).

Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic prescribing is common worldwide. There are several original studies about antibiotic prescribing in the healthcare setting of Iran reporting different levels of prescribing. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the prevalence of antibiotic prescribing in both inpatient and outpatient settings in Iran, an example of a developing country.MethodsTo identify published studies on antibiotic prescribing, databases such as ISI, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Electronic Persian were searched in Iran till January 2020. Eligible studies were those analyzing original data on the prescription and use of antibiotics in outpatient or inpatient settings in Iran. Moreover, all studies that used an intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using self-administered quality assessment criteria. The meta-analysis of prevalence of antibiotic prescribing was conducted based on the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines. To calculate pooled rates, the random-effects model was used.ResultsA total of 54 studies (39 outpatients and 15 inpatients) were included in this study. The median of antibiotic prescribing in the outpatient and inpatient settings accounted for 45.25% and 68.2% of patients, respectively. The results of meta-analysis also showed that the antibiotic prescribing accounted for 45% of prescriptions in outpatient settings and 39.5%, 66%, and 75.3% of patients in all wards, pediatrics wards, and ICU wards of inpatient settings, respectively. The most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes in outpatient settings were penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides, while in inpatient settings, these were cephalosporins, penicillins, and carbapenems. There were seven studies using interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing pattern. It should be mentioned that intervention in a study had a statistically significant effect on improving antibiotic prescribing (p < .05).ConclusionPrevalence of antibiotic prescribing in Iran is high. Our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices. It seems that developing a national plan to improve antibiotic prescribing is necessary.