scholarly journals A Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative and Critical Care Setting: Interventions Reducing Mortality

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 1430-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Sartini ◽  
Vladimir Lomivorotov ◽  
Marina Pieri ◽  
Juan Carlos Lopez-Delgado ◽  
Martina Baiardo Redaelli ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalie G Waller ◽  
Melanie C Wright ◽  
Noa Segall ◽  
Paige Nesbitt ◽  
Thomas Reese ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective Clinician information overload is prevalent in critical care settings. Improved visualization of patient information may help clinicians cope with information overload, increase efficiency, and improve quality. We compared the effect of information display interventions with usual care on patient care outcomes. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review including experimental and quasi-experimental studies of information display interventions conducted in critical care and anesthesiology settings. Citations from January 1990 to June 2018 were searched in PubMed and IEEE Xplore. Reviewers worked independently to screen articles, evaluate quality, and abstract primary outcomes and display features. Results Of 6742 studies identified, 22 studies evaluating 17 information displays met the study inclusion criteria. Information display categories included comprehensive integrated displays (3 displays), multipatient dashboards (7 displays), physiologic and laboratory monitoring (5 displays), and expert systems (2 displays). Significant improvement on primary outcomes over usual care was reported in 12 studies for 9 unique displays. Improvement was found mostly with comprehensive integrated displays (4 of 6 studies) and multipatient dashboards (5 of 7 studies). Only 1 of 5 randomized controlled trials had a positive effect in the primary outcome. Conclusion We found weak evidence suggesting comprehensive integrated displays improve provider efficiency and process outcomes, and multipatient dashboards improve compliance with care protocols and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials of physiologic and laboratory monitoring displays did not show improvement in primary outcomes, despite positive results in simulated settings. Important research translation gaps from laboratory to actual critical care settings exist.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin C. Krutsinger ◽  
Kuldeep N. Yadav ◽  
Michael O. Harhay ◽  
Karsten Bartels ◽  
Katherine R. Courtright

Abstract Background Enrollment problems are common among randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU. However, little is known about actual trial enrollment rates and influential factors. We set out to determine the overall enrollment rate in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), or sepsis, and which factors influenced enrollment rate. Methods We conducted a systematic review by searching Pubmed using predefined terms for ARDS/ALI and sepsis to identify individually RCTs published among the seven highest impact general medicine and seven highest impact critical care journals between 2009 and 2019. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using an electronic database management system. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the eligible trials for the primary outcome of enrollment rate by time and site. Results Out of 457 articles identified, 94 trials met inclusion criteria. Trials most commonly evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (53%), were non-industry funded (78%), and required prospective informed consent (81%). The overall mean enrollment rate was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.21) participants per month per site. Enrollment in ARDS/ALI and sepsis trials were 0.48 (95% CI 0.32–0.70) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.56) respectively. The enrollment rate was significantly higher for single-center trials (4.86; 95% CI 2.49–9.51) than multicenter trials (0.52; 95% CI 0.41–0.66). Of the 36 trials that enrolled < 95% of the target sample size, 8 (22%) reported slow enrollment as the reason. Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis, recent ARDS/ALI and sepsis clinical trials had an overall enrollment rate of less than 1 participant per site per month. Novel approaches to improve critical care trial enrollment efficiency are needed to facilitate the translation of best evidence into practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document