scholarly journals A multivariate model for successful publication of intensive care medicine randomized controlled trials in the highest impact factor journals: the SCOTI score

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris Pensier ◽  
Audrey De Jong ◽  
Gerald Chanques ◽  
Emmanuel Futier ◽  
Elie Azoulay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Validation Cohort ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Derivation Cohort ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Split Sample

Abstract Background Critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often published in high-impact journals, whether general journals [the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)] or critical care journals [Intensive Care Medicine (ICM), the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), Critical Care Medicine (CCM)]. As rejection occurs in up to 97% of cases, it might be appropriate to assess pre-submission probability of being published. The objective of this study was to develop and internally validate a simplified score predicting whether an ongoing trial stands a chance of being published in high-impact general journals. Methods A cohort of critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2018 in the three highest impact medical journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or the three highest impact critical care journals (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM) was split into two samples (derivation cohort, validation cohort) to develop and internally validate the simplified score. Primary outcome was journal of publication assessed as high-impact general journal (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or critical care journal (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM). Results A total of 968 critical care RCTs were included in the predictive cohort and split into a derivation cohort (n = 510) and a validation cohort (n = 458). In the derivation cohort, the sample size (P value < 0.001), the number of centers involved (P value = 0.01), mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.002) or a composite item including mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.004), and topic [ventilation (P value < 0.001) or miscellaneous (P value < 0.001)] were independent factors predictive of publication in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals. The SCOTI score (Sample size, Centers, Outcome, Topic, and International score) was developed with an area under the ROC curve of 0.84 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.80–0.88) in validation by split sample. Conclusions The SCOTI score, developed and validated by split sample, accurately predicts the chances of a critical care RCT being published in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals.

scholarly journals Conservative oxygen therapy for critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Li Chen ◽  
Bei-Lei Zhang ◽  
Chang Meng ◽  
Hui-Bin Huang ◽  
Bin Du
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective Conservative oxygen strategy is recommended in acute illness while its benefit in ICU patients remains controversial. Therefore, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine such oxygen strategies’ effect and safety in ICU patients. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database from inception to Feb 15, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a conservative oxygen strategy to a conventional strategy in critically ill patients were included. Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was the longest follow-up mortality. Heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were also investigated to test the robustness of the primary outcome. Results We included seven trials with a total of 5265 patients. In general, the conventional group had significantly higher SpO2 or PaO2 than that in the conservative group. No statistically significant differences were found in the longest follow-up mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97–1.10; I2=18%; P=0.34) between the two oxygen strategies when pooling studies enrolling subjects with various degrees of hypoxemia. Further sensitivity analysis showed that ICU patients with mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 >100 mmHg) had significantly lower mortality (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05–1.46; I2=0%; P=0.01) when receiving conservative oxygen therapy. These findings were also confirmed in other study periods. Additional, secondary outcomes of the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the ICU and hospital, change in sequential organ failure assessment score, and adverse events were comparable between the two strategies. Conclusions Our findings indicate that conservative oxygen therapy strategy did not improve the prognosis of the overall ICU patients. The subgroup of ICU patients with mild to moderate hypoxemia might obtain prognosis benefit from such a strategy without affecting other critical clinical results.

Efficacy and tolerability of Lavandula angustifolia in treating patients with the diagnosis of depression: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Shamabadi ◽  
Shahin Akhondzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lavandula Angustifolia ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Depressed Patients ◽  
Antidepressant Effects ◽  
And Control

Abstract Pharmacotherapy is the conventional treatment for depression, with only half of the patients responding to the first trial of monotherapy with first-line medicines. One way to overcome this resistance is to use complementary and alternative medicine. The antidepressant effects of Lavandula angustifolia, which is commonly called lavender, have been investigated in previous studies. This study aims to provide the first systematic review of lavender in treating patients with depression diagnosis. ISI Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and three trial registries were searched until May 2020 to find randomized controlled trials on lavender for depressed patients. The primary outcome was difference between the intervention and control groups in changing depression scores from baseline to endpoint. The included studies were assessed for effect size and methodological quality. Seven clinical trials were identified, in which 852 patients were studied. In six trials, the effectiveness of lavender in treating depression was reported, as being more pronounced adjunct to a typical antidepressant in one study. Significant reported side effects include headaches and eructation. Lavender is beneficial, tolerable, and safe in treating depression. Despite obtaining promising results, they are not enough to recommend prescribing lavender to depressed patients. Further high-quality, large-scale studies for rectifying the shortcomings of existing studies are recommended.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 1386-1395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Latronico ◽  
Marta Metelli ◽  
Maddalena Turin ◽  
Simone Piva ◽  
Frank A. Rasulo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Intensive Care Medicine ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

scholarly journals Assessing the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-179
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan ◽  
Rohan Kumar Ochani ◽  
Asim Shaikh ◽  
Muthiah Vaduganathan ◽  
Safi U Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document