-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2023Suggested anaesthetic dose ranges do not differ by sex, likely because of limited studies comparing sexes. Our objective was to systematically synthesise studies with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Suggested anaesthetic dose ranges do not differ by sex, likely because of limited studies comparing sexes. Our objective was to systematically synthesise studies with outcomes of unintended anaesthesia awareness under anaesthesia, intraoperative connected consciousness, time to emergence from anaesthesia, and dosing to achieve adequate depth of anaesthesia, and to compare between females and males.
METHODS
Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases until August 2, 2022. Controlled clinical trials (randomised/non-randomised) and prospective cohort studies that reported outcomes by sex were included. Results were synthesised by random effects meta-analysis where possible, or narrative form.
RESULTS
Of the 19 749 studies identified, 64 (98 243 participants; 53 143 females and 45 100 males) were eligible for inclusion, and 44 citations contributed to meta-analysis. Females had a higher incidence of awareness with postoperative recall (33 studies, odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.75) and connected consciousness during anaesthesia (three studies, OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.04-4.23) than males. Time to emergence was faster in females, including time to eye-opening (10 studies, mean difference -2.28 min, 95% CI -3.58 to -0.98), and time to response to command (six studies, mean difference -2.84 min, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.62). Data on depth of anaesthesia were heterogenous, limiting synthesis to a qualitative review which did not identify sex differences.
CONCLUSIONS
Female sex was associated with a greater incidence of awareness under general anaesthesia, and faster emergence from anaesthesia. These data suggest reappraisal of anaesthetic care, including whether similar drug dosing for females and males represents best care.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022336087.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Anesthetics; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesiology
PubMed: 37453840
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.06.042 -
Current Oncology Reports Feb 2017Though numerous treatment options are available to address cancer pain, inadequate management continues to be an ongoing problem worldwide. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Though numerous treatment options are available to address cancer pain, inadequate management continues to be an ongoing problem worldwide.
RECENT FINDINGS
A systematic review of the recent scientific literature was conducted with attention to new therapies along with reports of general consensus that were analyzed. Pain research continues to be difficult and though numerous guidelines have been developed, adequate powered studies are not common. Good practice would suggest a comprehensive approach to cancer pain management taking into account the many options available and treating each patient with a personalized therapeutic program. Though there is a very low number of randomized control trials, this probably reflects the difficulty in conducting these studies in heterogeneous cancer pain patient populations in sufficient numbers to yield credible study power.
Topics: Cancer Pain; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Precision Medicine
PubMed: 28220448
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-017-0570-0 -
Cureus Apr 2024Quality improvement (QI) projects are essential components of graduate medical education and healthcare organizations to improve patient outcomes. We systematically... (Review)
Review
Quality improvement (QI) projects are essential components of graduate medical education and healthcare organizations to improve patient outcomes. We systematically reviewed the literature on QI projects in anesthesiology graduate medical education programs to assess whether these projects are leading to publications. A literature search was conducted in July 2023, using PubMed, Embase, and the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for articles describing QI initiatives originating within the United States and applicable to anesthesiology residency training programs. The following data were collected: intervention(s), sample size (number of participants or events), outcome metric(s), result(s), and conclusion(s). One hundred and fifty publications were identified, and 31 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2,259 residents and 72,889 events were included in this review. Educational modalities, such as simulation, training sessions, or online curricula, were the most prevalent interventions in the included studies. Pre-intervention and post-intervention assessments were the most common outcome metrics reported. Our review of the literature demonstrates that few QI projects performed within anesthesiology training programs lead to published manuscripts. Further research should aim at increasing the impact of required QI projects within the sponsoring institution and specialty.
PubMed: 38725749
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57908 -
Critical Care (London, England) Nov 2023CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinimetric properties of the core outcome measurement instruments for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness (CONCISE).
BACKGROUND
CONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high.
CONCLUSIONS
Variable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hand Strength; Critical Illness; Activities of Daily Living; Treatment Outcome; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 37986015
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04729-7 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Apr 2015Perioperative medicine is emerging as a unique area of medical practice. Anesthesiology graduates are particularly well suited for this role given their training. The... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Perioperative medicine is emerging as a unique area of medical practice. Anesthesiology graduates are particularly well suited for this role given their training. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the various fellowships being offered in perioperative medicine and the scope of clinical perioperative practice that currently exists. The common areas of competency covered in these perioperative medicine fellowships are also identified.
SOURCE
On July 28, 2014, we conducted a search of the literature from January 1, 1946, to July 28, 2014 through MEDLINE®, EMBASE™ and the World Wide Web for definitions of perioperative medicine and for curricula for fellowships in perioperative care throughout the world.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Currently, seven institutions offer postgraduate fellowships in perioperative medicine, including two Canadian universities (University of Manitoba and University of Toronto), two American universities (Stanford University and University of California, Irvine), two Australian institutions (University of Western Australia, and the Alfred Hospital), and one New Zealand site (North Shore Hospital). Apart from fellowships, we also identified other postgraduate training routes. Graduate master's programs in perioperative medicine were identified in the United Kingdom and in Australia. A new intensive five-day perioperative medicine course was also identified. The scope of the curricula of the fellowships, the main focus of our review, is not uniform, although common elements emerged, including a research component and exposure to pain medicine.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of published literature on what perioperative care entails as well as what perioperative fellowship curricula should include. While we suggest certain areas of focus to include, the subspecialty of perioperative medicine would benefit from a cohesive and consensus-based curriculum to which academic fellowships could adhere.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Curriculum; Fellowships and Scholarships; Humans; Perioperative Care
PubMed: 25516012
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-014-0299-2 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Apr 2023Mortality, morbidity, and organ failure are important and common serious harms after surgery. However, there are many candidate measures to describe these outcome...
BACKGROUND
Mortality, morbidity, and organ failure are important and common serious harms after surgery. However, there are many candidate measures to describe these outcome domains. Definitions of these measures are highly variable, and validity is often unclear. As part of the International Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative, this study aimed to derive a set of standardised and valid measures of mortality, morbidity, and organ failure for use in perioperative clinical trials.
METHODS
Three domains of endpoints (mortality, morbidity, and organ failure) were explored through systematic literature review and a three-stage Delphi consensus process using methods consistently applied across the StEP initiative. Reliability, feasibility, and patient-centredness were assessed in round 3 of the consensus process.
RESULTS
A high level of consensus was achieved for two mortality time points, 30-day and 1-yr mortality, and these two measures are recommended. No organ failure endpoints achieved threshold criteria for consensus recommendation. The Clavien-Dindo classification of complications achieved threshold criteria for consensus in round 2 of the Delphi process but did not achieve the threshold criteria in round 3 where it scored equivalently to the Post Operative Morbidity Survey. Clavien-Dindo therefore received conditional endorsement as the most widely used measure. No composite measures of organ failure achieved an acceptable level of consensus.
CONCLUSIONS
Both 30-day and 1-yr mortality measures are recommended. No measure is recommended for organ failure. One measure (Clavien-Dindo) is conditionally endorsed for postoperative morbidity, but our findings suggest that no single endpoint offers a reliable and valid measure to describe perioperative morbidity that is not dependent on the quality of deli-vered care. Further refinement of current measures, or development of novel measures, of postoperative morbidity might improve consensus in this area.
Topics: Humans; Perioperative Care; Consensus; Reproducibility of Results; Perioperative Medicine; Morbidity; Delphi Technique
PubMed: 36697275
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.12.012 -
Annals of Intensive Care Apr 2020The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research... (Review)
Review
Systematic review and literature appraisal on methodology of conducting and reporting critical-care echocardiography studies: a report from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine PRICES expert panel.
BACKGROUND
The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research methodology and reporting based on a systematic appraisal of the current literature. Here is reported this systematic appraisal.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review, registered on the Prospero database. A total of 43 items of common interest to all echocardiography studies were initially listed by the experts, and other "topic-specific" items were separated into five main categories of interest (left ventricular systolic function, LVSF n = 15, right ventricular function, RVF n = 18, left ventricular diastolic function, LVDF n = 15, fluid management, FM n = 7, and advanced echocardiography techniques, AET n = 17). We evaluated the percentage of items reported per study and the fraction of studies reporting a single item.
RESULTS
From January 2000 till December 2017 a total of 209 articles were included after systematic search and screening, 97 for LVSF, 48 for RVF, 51 for LVDF, 36 for FM and 24 for AET. Shock and ARDS were relatively common among LVSF articles (both around 15%) while ARDS comprised 25% of RVF articles. Transthoracic echocardiography was the main echocardiography mode, in 87% of the articles for AET topic, followed by 81% for FM, 78% for LVDF, 70% for LVSF and 63% for RVF. The percentage of items per study as well as the fraction of study reporting an item was low or very low, except for FM. As an illustration, the left ventricular size was only reported by 56% of studies in the LVSF topic, and half studies assessing RVF reported data on pulmonary artery systolic pressure.
CONCLUSION
This analysis confirmed sub-optimal reporting of several items listed by an expert panel. The analysis will help the experts in the development of guidelines for CCE study design and reporting.
PubMed: 32335780
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-020-00662-y -
The Journal of Infection Feb 2017This article systematically reviews research on the costs of sepsis and, as a secondary aim, evaluates the quality of economic evaluations reported in peer-reviewed... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This article systematically reviews research on the costs of sepsis and, as a secondary aim, evaluates the quality of economic evaluations reported in peer-reviewed journals.
METHODS
We systematically searched the MEDLINE, National Health Service (Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment), Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Knowledge databases for studies published between January 2005 and June 2015. We selected original articles that provided cost and cost-effectiveness analyses, defined sepsis and described their cost calculation method. Only studies that considered index admissions and re-admissions in the first 30 days were published in peer-reviewed journals and used standard treatments were considered. All costs were adjusted to 2014 US dollars. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for various costs of sepsis were calculated. The quality of economic studies was assessed using the Drummond 10-item checklist.
RESULTS
Overall, 37 studies met our eligibility criteria. The median of the mean hospital-wide cost of sepsis per patient was $32,421 (IQR $20,745-$40,835), and the median of the mean ICU cost of sepsis per patient was $27,461 (IQR $16,007-$31,251). Overall, the quality of economic studies was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Estimates of the hospital-related costs of sepsis varied considerably across the included studies depending on the method used for cost calculation, the type of sepsis and the population that was examined. A standard model for conducting cost improve the quality of studies on the costs of sepsis.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hospital Costs; Humans; Length of Stay; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 27884733
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.11.006 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Apr 2021
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Critical Illness; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Multiple Organ Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Time Factors
PubMed: 33798761
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100857 -
Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) Feb 2016There is growing public and legislative body support for the medical use of cannabis products, for example, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is growing public and legislative body support for the medical use of cannabis products, for example, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), in Germany.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search until November 2015 was conducted in MEDLINE, DARE and Cochrane libraries for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing herbal or pharmaceutical cannabinoids (CB) versus placebo or conventional antiemetics for CINV. Outcomes were reduction of CINV for efficacy, drop-out rates due to adverse events for tolerability, and serious adverse events for safety. The methodology quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated by the tool assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).
RESULTS
Six systematic reviews of RCTs included the pharmaceutical CBs dronabinol, levonantradol, and nabilone or whole plant extract (e.g., nabiximol) compared with placebo or conventional antiemetics. There was moderate quality evidence on the efficacy of CBs compared to placebo and conventional antiemetics for CINV. There was moderate quality evidence that pharmaceutical CBs were less tolerated and less safe than placebo and conventional antiemetics in CINV. One RCT examining whole plant extract was included into the systematic reviews. No RCT was found comparing CBs with neurokinine-1 receptor antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS
With safe and effective antiemetics available, CBs cannot be recommended as first- or second-line therapy for CINV. Some guidelines recommend pharmaceutical CBs as third-line treatment in the management of breakthrough nausea and vomiting. Due to the lack of RCT data and safety concerns, herbal cannabis cannot be recommended for CINV.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Medical Marijuana; Nausea; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting
PubMed: 26787227
DOI: 10.1007/s00482-015-0092-3