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

      Risk factors for Hirschsprung disease-associated enterocolitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      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

          Background:

          The incidence of Hirschsprung disease (HSCR) is nearly 1/5000 and patients with HSCR are usually treated through surgical intervention. Hirschsprung disease-associated enterocolitis (HAEC) is a complication of HSCR with the highest morbidity and mortality in patients. The evidence on the risk factors for HAEC remains inconclusive to date.

          Methods:

          Four English databases and four Chinese databases were searched for relevant studies published until May 2022. The search retrieved 53 relevant studies. The retrieved studies were scored on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale by three researchers. Revman 5.4 software was employed for data synthesis and analysis. Stata 16 software was employed for sensitivity analysis and bias analysis.

          Results:

          A total of 53 articles were retrieved from the database search, which included 10 012 cases of HSCR and 2310 cases of HAEC. The systematic analysis revealed anastomotic stenosis or fistula [ I 2=66%, risk ratio (RR)=1.90, 95% CI 1.34–2.68, P<0.001], preoperative enterocolitis ( I 2=55%, RR=2.07, 95% CI 1.71–2.51, P<0.001), preoperative malnutrition ( I 2=0%, RR=1.96, 95% CI 1.52–2.53, P<0.001), preoperative respiratory infection or pneumonia ( I 2=0%, RR=2.37, 95% CI 1.91–2.93, P<0.001), postoperative ileus ( I 2=17%, RR=2.41, 95% CI 2.02–2.87, P<0.001), length of ganglionless segment greater than 30 cm ( I 2=0%, RR=3.64, 95% CI 2.43–5.48, P<0.001), preoperative hypoproteinemia ( I 2=0%, RR=1.91, 95% CI 1.44–2.54, P<0.001), and Down syndrome ( I 2=29%, RR=1.65, 95% CI 1.32–2.07, P<0.001) as the risk factors for postoperative HAEC. Short-segment HSCR ( I 2=46%, RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.54–0.71, P<0.001) and transanal operation ( I 2=78%, RR=0.56, 95% CI 0.33–0.96, P=0.03) were revealed as the protective factors against postoperative HAEC. Preoperative malnutrition ( I 2=35 % , RR=5.33, 95% CI 2.68–10.60, P<0.001), preoperative hypoproteinemia ( I 2=20%, RR=4.17, 95% CI 1.91–9.12, P<0.001), preoperative enterocolitis ( I 2=45%, RR=3.51, 95% CI 2.54–4.84, P<0.001), and preoperative respiratory infection or pneumonia ( I 2=0%, RR=7.20, 95% CI 4.00–12.94, P<0.001) were revealed as the risk factors for recurrent HAEC, while short-segment HSCR ( I 2=0%, RR=0.40, 95% CI 0.21–0.76, P=0.005) was revealed as a protective factor against recurrent HAEC.

          Conclusion:

          The present review delineated the multiple risk factors for HAEC, which could assist in preventing the development of HAEC.

          Abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

            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: not found

              Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

              Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                August 2023
                05 June 2023
                : 109
                : 8
                : 2509-2524
                Affiliations
                Departments of [a ]Pediatric surgery
                [b ]Gastroenterology
                [c ]Stomatology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Department of Pediatric surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Wenhua West Road 107#, Jinan, 250012, China. Tel.: +86 18560086388. E-mail address: liaiwu@ 123456qiluhospital.com (A. Li); Department of Stomatology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Wenhua West Road 107#, Jinan, 250012, China. Tel.: +86 18560083736. E-mail address: dtjeanne68@ 123456126.com (C. Jia).
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6134-5588
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1069-2026
                Article
                IJS-D-23-00415 00035
                10.1097/JS9.0000000000000473
                10442125
                37288551
                9bf56e21-e5a1-4df7-a7d2-dbb898cc7cf0
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 5 March 2023
                : 8 May 2023
                Categories
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                T
                TRUE

                Surgery
                enterocolitis,hirschsprungs disease,meta-analysis,risk factor,systematic review
                Surgery
                enterocolitis, hirschsprungs disease, meta-analysis, risk factor, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article