-
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2023Controversy remains over the choice of anaesthetic technique for patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Controversy remains over the choice of anaesthetic technique for patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture.
AIM
The aim was to compare the risk of complication of neuraxial anaesthesia with that of general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022337384). The study included eligible randomised controlled trials published before February 2022. Data synthesis was performed to compare the differences between general and neuraxial anaesthesia. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate the influence of the publication year. A subgroup analysis was performed based on patient age and the anaesthetic technique used. A grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations assessment was performed to assess the quality of each outcome.
RESULTS
Twenty randomised controlled trials and 4802 patients were included. Data synthesis revealed significant higher risk of acute kidney injury in the general anaesthesia group ( P =0.01). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in postoperative short-term mortality ( P =0.34), delirium ( P =0.40), postoperative nausea and vomiting ( P =0.40), cardiac infarction ( P =0.31), acute heart failure ( P =0.34), pulmonary embolism ( P =0.24) and pneumonia ( P =0.15). Subgroup analysis based on patient age and use of sedative medication did not reveal any significant differences. Meta-regression analysis of the publication year versus each adverse event revealed no statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSION
A significantly higher risk of postoperative acute kidney injury was found in patients receiving general anaesthesia. This study revealed no significant differences in terms of postoperative mortality and other complications between general and neuraxial anaesthesia. The results were consistent across the age groups.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Anesthesiology; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36912758
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000291 -
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 -
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 -
Transfusion Mar 2022
Meta-Analysis Review
Topics: Anemia; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Humans; Morbidity
PubMed: 34967018
DOI: 10.1111/trf.16788 -
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 -
Resuscitation Plus Jun 2023The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes.
METHODS
The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land ( = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies ( = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSION
The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning.
PubMed: 37424769
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100406 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Sep 2023The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study...
PURPOSE
The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study assessed the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in anesthesiology.
METHODS
We searched four databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, for anesthesiology NMAs published from inception to October 2020. We assessed the compliance of NMAs against A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA), and PRISMA checklists. We measured the compliance across various items in AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists and provided recommendations to improve quality.
RESULTS
Using the AMSTAR-2 rating method, 84% (52/62) of NMAs were rated "critically low." Quantitatively, the median [interquartile range] AMSTAR-2 score was 55 [44-69]%, while the PRISMA score was 70 [61-81]%. Methodological and reporting scores showed a strong correlation (R = 0.78). Anesthesiology NMAs had a higher AMSTAR-2 score and PRISMA score if they were published in higher impact factor journals (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively) or followed PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Network meta-analyses from China had lower scores (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither score improved over time (P = 0.69 and P = 0.67, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs. Although the AMSTAR tool has been used to assess the methodological quality of NMAs, dedicated tools for conducting and assessing the methodological quality of NMAs are urgently required.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); first submitted 23 January 2021.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Anesthesiology; Epidemiologic Studies; Research Design; Checklist; Research Report
PubMed: 37420161
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-023-02510-6 -
PloS One 2023Persistent symptoms are reported in patients who survive the initial stage of COVID-19, often referred to as "long COVID" or "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Persistent symptoms are reported in patients who survive the initial stage of COVID-19, often referred to as "long COVID" or "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection" (PASC); however, evidence on their incidence is still lacking, and symptoms relevant to pain are yet to be assessed.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CHINAL and preprint servers MedRχiv and BioRχiv through January 15, 2021. The primary outcome was pain-related symptoms such as headache or myalgia. Secondary outcomes were symptoms relevant to pain (depression or muscle weakness) and symptoms frequently reported (anosmia and dyspnea). Incidence rates of symptoms were pooled using inverse variance methods with a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. The source of heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression, with follow-up period, age and sex as covariates.
RESULTS
In total, 38 studies including 19,460 patients were eligible. Eight pain-related symptoms and 26 other symptoms were identified. The highest pooled incidence among pain-related symptoms was chest pain (17%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-24%), followed by headache (16%, 95% CI, 9%-27%), arthralgia (13%, 95% CI, 7%-24%), neuralgia (12%, 95% CI, 3%-38%) and abdominal pain (11%, 95% CI, 7%-16%). The highest pooled incidence among other symptoms was fatigue (44%, 95% CI, 32%-57%), followed by insomnia (27%, 95% CI, 10%-55%), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI, 17%-38%), weakness (25%, 95% CI, 8%-56%) and anosmia (19%, 95% CI, 13%-27%). Substantial heterogeneity was identified (I2, 50-100%). Meta-regression analyses partially accounted for the source of heterogeneity, and yet, 53% of the symptoms remained unexplained.
CONCLUSIONS
The current meta-analysis may provide a complete picture of incidence in PASC. It remains unclear, however, whether post-COVID symptoms progress or regress over time or to what extent PASC are associated with age or sex.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Incidence; Anosmia; SARS-CoV-2; Headache; Dyspnea
PubMed: 38019841
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250909