延续性护理方式对慢性伤口治疗效果的Meta分析  

Efficacy of continuity of care for chronic wounds: a Meta-analysis

作　　者：汤一帆 顾则娟[2] 尹祥广 邢双双[1] 赵静 TANG Yifan;GU Zejuan;YIN Xiangguang;XING Shuangshuang;ZHAO Jing(School of Nursing,Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 210029,China;Nursing Department,the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 210029,China;Department of Outpatient Treatment,the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University,Nanjing 210029,China)

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学护理学院,南京市210029 [2]南京医科大学第一附属医院护理部,南京市210029 [3]南京医科大学第一附属医院门诊治疗室,南京市210029

出　　处：《护理管理杂志》2018年第8期538-542,共5页Journal of Nursing Administration

基　　金：江苏省创新团队基金资助项目(苏卫科教[2016]22号)

摘　　要：目的评价延续性护理方式对慢性伤口治疗效果的影响。方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、Web of Science、Nature、CINAHL、Embase、Ebscohost、CNKI、万方、VIP以及CBM数据库中关于延续性护理方式对于慢性伤口治疗效果的临床对照试验,参考Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具对文献质量进行评价,采用Rev Man5.3对纳入文献进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入9项研究,共805例患者,研究结果显示,社区传统护理比远程指导有助于慢性伤口的痊愈(P=0.004),上门指导比同伴教育有助于慢性伤口的痊愈(P=0.03)。描述性统计分析结果显示,护士门诊与上门指导对慢性伤口的治愈率与生活质量影响差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),同伴教育比上门指导对慢性伤口患者的生活质量得分提高显著(P=0.014)。结论对于携带慢性伤口出院患者的延续性护理方案中,社区传统护理比远程专家小组、上门指导比同伴教育更能促进伤口愈合,而同伴教育在心理干预方面更有成效,护士门诊与上门指导对慢性伤口的治愈率与生活质量干预效果基本一致。Objective To evaluate the effect of continuity of care on chronic wound healing.Methods Databases like Cochrane Library,PubMed,Web of Science,Nature,CINAHL,Embase,Ebscohost,CNKI,Wan Fang,VIP,and CBM were searched to collect clinical controlled trials on continuity of care for the treatment of chronic wound.The quality of trials was critically appraised by the Cochrane collaboration＇s tool.Data was extracted and analyzed by meta-analysis using software Rev Man5.3.Results Finally 9 articles and 805 cases were included.Results of meta-analysis showed that wound healing of traditional community nursing was better than remote guidance（ P = 0.004）,and door guidance contributed to chronic wounds healing more than peer education（ P = 0.03）.Descriptive statistical analysis showed that there was no difference between nursing clinic and door guidance on chronic wounds in cure rate and quality of life（ P〈0.05）.Peer education contributed to the quality of life in chronic wounds patient more than door guidance（ P = 0.014）.Conclusion For patients with chronic wounds,traditional community nursing is better than remote nursing care,and door guidance is better than peer education in healing rate.Moreover,peer education has some positive effect on mental intervention.Nursing clinic has no differences with door guidance in healing rate and quality of life.

关 键 词：延续性护理 慢性伤口 治愈率 META分析 

分 类 号：R248.2[医药卫生—中医临床基础]