ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A living donor transplant improves the survival and quality of life of a transplant patient. However, the impact of transplantation on postoperative lung function and respiratory muscular strength in kidney donors remains unknown.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, quality of life and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in kidney donors undergoing nephrectomy.METHOD: This prospective cohort enrolled 110 consecutive kidney donors undergoing nephrectomy. Subjects underwent pulmonary function (using spirometry) and respiratory muscular strength (using manovacuometry) assessments on the day prior to surgery and 1, 2, 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Quality of life (measured by the SF-36) was evaluated preoperatively and 30 days postoperatively. PPCs were assessed daily by a blinded assessor.RESULTS: Donors exhibited a decrease of 27% in forced vital capacity, 58% in maximum inspiratory capacity and 51% in maximum expiratory pressure on the 1stpostoperative day (p<0.001) but this improved over days 2, 3 and 5 but had not returned to preoperative levels. Patient quality of life was still impaired at 30 days with regards to functional capacity, physical role, pain, vitality and social functioning (p<0.05) but these parameters improved slowly. None of the patients developed PPCs.CONCLUSION: Kidney donors submitted to nephrectomy exhibited a reduction in pulmonary function, respiratory muscular strength and quality of life, most of which were improving toward pre-surgical levels.
Subject(s)
Humans , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Respiratory Muscles/physiopathology , Lung/physiopathology , Nephrectomy , Quality of Life , Respiration , Longitudinal StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are considered the best design to synthesize all existing information of a given research topic. To date, there is no study that investigated the quality of reporting of systematic reviews relevant to physical therapy published in Portuguese. Objective: To analyse the quality of reporting of systematic reviews in the field of physical therapy published in Portuguese by using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) checklist. METHOD: All systematic reviews published in Portuguese that were indexed on PEDro database up to August 2011 were included. The quality of reporting of the eligible papers was analysed by using the PRISMA checklist. Each quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers with arbitration of a third reviewer if necessary. RESULTS: A total of 37 systematic reviews were identified. These studies were published between 2003 and 2010. Less than 30% of the PRISMA checklist items were satisfied, being most of the items related to the introduction and discussion sections. No improvements over time were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies did not satisfy the items from the PRISMA Checklist. It seems that most of authors did not know the existence of this checklist. The implementation of reporting statements such as the PRISMA statement by Portuguese-written journals is likely to help authors to write their systematic reviews in a more transparent and clear way.
CONTEXTUALIZAÇÃO: As revisões sistemáticas são consideradas a melhor forma de sintetizar toda a informação existente sobre um determinado tópico, porém não se conhece, até o momento, a qualidade da apresentação textual das revisões sistemáticas em fisioterapia publicadas no idioma português. Objetivo: Analisar a apresentação textual de revisões sistemáticas em fisioterapia publicadas no idioma português utilizando as recomendações PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MÉTODO: Foram analisadas todas as revisões sistemáticas apresentadas na base de dados PEDro até o mês de agosto de 2011. Para a análise da descrição textual foi utilizada a lista de verificação PRISMA. Cada revisão foi avaliada por pares de revisores independentes e, em caso de discordância entre os pares, um terceiro avaliador fez a arbitragem final. RESULTADOS: Foram identificadas 37 revisões sistemáticas que foram publicadas entre os anos de 2003 e 2010. Menos de 30% dos itens da lista de verificação PRISMA foram descritos pelos autores, sendo que a maioria dos itens satisfeitos se refere às seções de introdução e discussão. Observou-se que não houve um aumento na adesão aos itens recomendados para a apresentação textual com o passar do tempo. CONCLUSÕES: A adesão aos critérios preconizados pela lista de verificação da PRISMA é baixa para revisões sistemáticas publicadas no idioma português, o que pode ser reflexo do desconhecimento da existência de tais recomendações. A implementação de recomendações aos autores pelos periódicos nacionais poderá auxiliar os autores na redação de seus artigos, melhorando a clareza com que reportam seus estudos.