论文部分内容阅读
[目的]评价1997～2008年宫颈病变治疗临床疗效类文献的质量。[方法]收集1997年6月～2008年6月国内医学期刊公开发表的治疗宫颈病变的临床疗效观察的文献303篇,从病例数、研究设计、治疗方法、疗效判断、随访结果等方面对符合文献纳入标准的文献进行质量评价。[结果]1997～2008年间发表的治疗宫颈病变临床疗效观察类的文献303篇。试验设计采用描述性研究的277篇,随机对照研究19篇,对照而未随机研究7篇;文献发表数量明显呈逐年上升趋势,以2007年为高峰;属于省级、市级医院产出的文献分别为133篇和181篇;使用了疗效评定标准的文献290篇,占95.7%,其中明确规范者114篇,占37.6%;治疗方法中以LEEP术为主,占67.7%;一次治愈率为89.3%～100%,平均为93.5%,其中宫颈炎的治愈率(93.4%～98.8%)最高,宫颈湿疣的治愈率(66.7%～87.5%)最低,CIN的治愈率为84.4%～96.3%;随访时间为3个月～30个月,其中6个月内的有232篇,占76.6%;以术后出血并发症最常见,发生率为1.1%～13.3%。[结论]在宫颈病变治疗中,各文献疗效的判断标准较一致,治愈率较高,以LEEP治疗为主,但普遍存在随访时间、随机对照不够的问题。
[Objective] To evaluate the quality of clinical curative effect of cervical lesions treated from 1997 to 2008. [Methods] A total of 303 literatures about clinical curative effect of cervical lesions treated in domestic medical journals from June 1997 to June 2008 were collected. The results were consistent with the number of cases, research design, treatment, curative effect and follow-up results The literature is included in the standard literature for quality assessment. [Results] There were 303 literatures about clinical curative effect of treating cervical lesions published from 1997 to 2008. The experimental design used 277 descriptive studies, 19 randomized controlled studies and 7 randomized controlled trials. The number of published papers showed an upward trend year by year and peaked in 2007, and the output of provincial-level and municipal-level hospitals Respectively, 133 articles and 181 articles. There were 290 articles (95.7%), of whom 114 were clearly standardized (accounting for 37.6%). LEEP was the main method of treatment, accounting for 67.7%. The first cure rate was The cure rate of cervicitis was the highest (66.7% ~ 87.5%), the cure rate of CIN was 84.4% ~ 96.3% ; The follow-up time ranged from 3 months to 30 months, of which 232 were within 6 months, accounting for 76.6%. The postoperative bleeding complications were the most common, the incidence rate was 1.1% ~ 13.3%. [Conclusion] In the treatment of cervical lesions, the curative effect of each literature is more consistent with the standard of judgment, the cure rate is higher, the main treatment of LEEP, but the prevalence of follow-up time, randomized control is not enough.