目的:评价并总结血液透析病人血糖管理的相关证据,根据最佳证据构建血液透析病人血糖管理指导流程图,为临床指导血液透析病人血糖管理提供依据。方法:系统检索中国知网、万方、维普、BMJ Best Practice、UpToDate、EMbase、PubMed、Web ...目的:评价并总结血液透析病人血糖管理的相关证据,根据最佳证据构建血液透析病人血糖管理指导流程图,为临床指导血液透析病人血糖管理提供依据。方法:系统检索中国知网、万方、维普、BMJ Best Practice、UpToDate、EMbase、PubMed、Web of Science、the Cochrane Library等数据库中关于血液透析病人血糖管理的相关文献。检索时限为建库至2022年6月30日。对文献质量进行评价整合、证据分级;采用专家小组会议法构建血糖管理指导流程图。结果:最终纳入9篇文献,其中系统评价2篇,专家共识2篇,指南5篇。总结了包括血糖管理、血糖监测、血糖控制目标、用药干预、胰岛素控制5个方面、31条证据,并构建了血液透析病人血糖管理指导的流程图。结论:总结了血液透析病人血糖管理相关的最佳证据,并根据最佳证据制作了血糖管理指导流程图,可为医护人员临床指导血液透析病人血糖管理提供参考。展开更多
Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） ...Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.展开更多
文摘目的:评价并总结血液透析病人血糖管理的相关证据,根据最佳证据构建血液透析病人血糖管理指导流程图,为临床指导血液透析病人血糖管理提供依据。方法:系统检索中国知网、万方、维普、BMJ Best Practice、UpToDate、EMbase、PubMed、Web of Science、the Cochrane Library等数据库中关于血液透析病人血糖管理的相关文献。检索时限为建库至2022年6月30日。对文献质量进行评价整合、证据分级;采用专家小组会议法构建血糖管理指导流程图。结果:最终纳入9篇文献,其中系统评价2篇,专家共识2篇,指南5篇。总结了包括血糖管理、血糖监测、血糖控制目标、用药干预、胰岛素控制5个方面、31条证据,并构建了血液透析病人血糖管理指导的流程图。结论:总结了血液透析病人血糖管理相关的最佳证据,并根据最佳证据制作了血糖管理指导流程图,可为医护人员临床指导血液透析病人血糖管理提供参考。
文摘Summary： We performed a retrospective, case-control study to evaluate whether the urine flow acceleration （UFA, mL/s2） is superior to maximum uroflow （Qmax, mL/s） in diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction （BOO） in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. In this study, a total of 50 men with BPH （age： 58±12.5 years） and 50 controls （age： 59±13.0 years） were included. A pressure-flow study was used to determine the presence of BOO according to the recommendations of Incontinence Control Society （ICS）. The results showed that the UFA and Qmax in BPH group were much lower than those in the control group [（2.05±0.85） vs. （4.60±1.25） mL/s2 and （8.50±1.05） vs. （13.00±3.35） mL/s] （P〈0.001）. Accol;ding to the criteria （UFA〈2.05 mL/s2, Qmax〈10 mL/s）, the sensitivity and specificity of UFA vs. Qmax in diagnosing BOO were 88%, 75% vs. 81%, 63%. UFA vs. Omax, when compared with the results of P-Q chart （the kappa values in corresponding analysis）, was 0.55 vs. 0.35. The pros- tate volume, post void residual and detrusor pressure at Qmax between the two groups were 28.6±9.8 vs. 24.2±7.6 mL, 60.4±1.4 vs. 21.3±2.5 mL and 56.6±8.3 vs. 21.7±6.1 cmHzO, respectively （P〈0.05）. It was concluded that the UFA is a useful urodynamic parameter, and is superior to Qmax in diagnosing BOO in patients with BPH.
