Clifford S Deutschman1, Tom Ahrens2, Charles B Cairns3, Curtis N Sessler4, Polly E Parsons5. 1. Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research, Philadelphia, PA; Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research, Philadelphia, PA; Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO. 3. Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 5. Critical Care Societies Collaborative/USCIITG Task Force on Critical Care Research, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. Electronic address: polly.parsons@vtmednet.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. OBJECTIVE: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. METHODS: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. RESULTS: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. CONCLUSIONS: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.
BACKGROUND: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. OBJECTIVE: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. METHODS: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. RESULTS: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. CONCLUSIONS: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.
Authors: J Perren Cobb; Frederick P Ognibene; David H Ingbar; Henry J Mann; David B Hoyt; Derek C Angus; Alvin V Thomas; Robert L Danner; Anthony F Suffredini Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Lisa A Weissfeld; R Scott Watson; Tim Rickert; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jason E Moore; John M Oropello; Daniel Stoltzfus; Henry Masur; Craig M Coopersmith; Joseph Nates; Christopher Doig; John Christman; R Duncan Hite; Derek C Angus; Stephen M Pastores; Vladimir Kvetan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elizabeth DE Papathanassoglou; Meropi DA Mpouzika; Margarita Giannakopoulou; Evangelos Bozas; Nicos Middleton; George Tsiaousis; Andreas Karabinis Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Krzysztof Laudanski; Mateusz Zawadka; Jacek Polosak; Jaymin Modi; Matthew DiMeglio; Jacob Gutsche; Wilson Y Szeto; Monika Puzianowska-Kuznicka Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 5.531