手动负压吸引人工流产术技术特性的系统评价  

Technical characteristics of manual vacuum aspiration:A systematic review

作　　者：张文[1,2] 吴尚纯 

机构地区：[1]北京协和医学院研究生院,100081 [2]国家卫生计生委科学技术研究所

出　　处：《中国计划生育学杂志》2015年第6期364-367,375,共5页Chinese Journal of Family Planning

摘　　要：目的：系统评价手动负压吸引人工流产术（MVA）的技术特性。方法：检索CBMdisc（1978~2014年）、CNKI（1979~2014年）、万方数据库（1982~2014年）、维普数据库（1989~2014年）、PubMed（1966~2014年）、Cochrane Library（2014年第1期）及相关杂志,纳入MVA与电动负压吸引人工流产术（EVA）相比较的随机对照试验。评价纳入研究的方法学质量,采用RevMan5.0软件进行meta分析。结果：纳入5篇文献,其中B级2篇,C级3篇。分析结果显示：不论是安慰剂组或米索前列醇组,宫颈扩张〉2mm的比例MVA组均比EVA组低,差异有统计学意义[RR及95%CI分别为0.66（0.45,0.96）,0.48（0.26,0.90）];在宫颈扩张时间方面,不论是安慰剂组或米索前列醇组,MVA组均比EVA组短,差异有统计学意义[WMD及95%CI分别为-8.87（-17.53,-0.21）,-9.04（-16.94,-1.14）];在术中进出宫腔次数方面,MVA比EVA少,差异有统计学意义[WMD及95%CI为-0.06（-0.10,-0.01）];在噪音方面,MVA比EVA产生更少的噪音。结论：现有的最佳证据认为MVA具有更加优良的技术特性。Objective：To evaluate technical characteristics of manual vacuum aspiration（MVA）.Methods： We searched medical databases including CBMdisc（1978-2014）,CNKI（1979-2014）,Wanfang Database（1982-2014）,VIP Database（1989-2014）,PubMed（1966-2014）,Cochrane Library by compute and manually searched other related journals to screen randomized controlled trials（RCT）that involved in the comparison of MVA and Electric vacuum aspiration（EVA）.The quality of included trials was assessed.RevMan 5.0 software was used for meta-analysis.Results：Five trials were included,in which 2RCTs were graded B and 3 were graded C.The degree of cervical dilation of MVA was lower than that of electric vacuum aspiration（EVA）.The cervical dilation time of MVA was shorter than that of EVA.The times which the suction passed in and out of the uterus in MVA group were less than that of EVA,showing statistically significant difference[WMD（95% CI）value was-0.06（-0.10,-0.01）].Less noise was felt in MVA group than EVA group.Conclusion：Based on the current best evidence,MVA has better technical characteristics.

关 键 词：手动负压吸引人工流产术 电动负压吸引人工流产术 技术特性 系统评价 

分 类 号：R169.42[医药卫生—公共卫生与预防医学]