Literature DB >> 25821918

Mortality in Multicenter Critical Care Trials: An Analysis of Interventions With a Significant Effect.

Giovanni Landoni1, Marco Comis, Massimiliano Conte, Gabriele Finco, Marta Mucchetti, Gianluca Paternoster, Antonio Pisano, Laura Ruggeri, Gabriele Alvaro, Manuela Angelone, Pier C Bergonzi, Speranza Bocchino, Giovanni Borghi, Tiziana Bove, Giuseppe Buscaglia, Luca Cabrini, Lino Callegher, Fabio Caramelli, Sergio Colombo, Laura Corno, Paolo Del Sarto, Paolo Feltracco, Alessandro Forti, Marco Ganzaroli, Massimiliano Greco, Fabio Guarracino, Rosalba Lembo, Rosetta Lobreglio, Roberta Meroni, Fabrizio Monaco, Mario Musu, Giovanni Pala, Laura Pasin, Marina Pieri, Stefania Pisarra, Giuseppe Ponticelli, Agostino Roasio, Francesco Santini, Simona Silvetti, Andrea Székely, Massimo Zambon, Maria Chiara Zucchetti, Alberto Zangrillo, Rinaldo Bellomo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians' opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. STUDY SELECTION: We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. DATA EXTRACTION: For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25821918     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000974

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  26 in total

1.  Low tidal volume ventilation.

Authors:  Siobhane Holden; Raj Nichani
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2018-04-26

2.  Innovation and safety in critical care: should we collaborate with the industry? Con.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Jon Henrik Laake; Iwan C C van der Horst
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Do trials that report a neutral or negative treatment effect improve the care of critically ill patients? Yes.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Simon Finfer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Is research from databases reliable? No.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Rinaldo Bellomo; Morten Hylander Møller
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  The intensive care medicine research agenda on septic shock.

Authors:  Anders Perner; Anthony C Gordon; Derek C Angus; Francois Lamontagne; Flavia Machado; James A Russell; Jean-Francois Timsit; John C Marshall; John Myburgh; Manu Shankar-Hari; Mervyn Singer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Improved survival in critically ill patients: are large RCTs more useful than personalized medicine? Yes.

Authors:  Rinaldo Bellomo; Giovanni Landoni; Paul Young
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 7.  Time to stop randomized and large pragmatic trials for intensive care medicine syndromes: the case of sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Armand R J Girbes; Harm-Jan de Grooth
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  A Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Machine Learning for Health.

Authors:  Marzyeh Ghassemi; Tristan Naumann; Peter Schulam; Andrew L Beam; Irene Y Chen; Rajesh Ranganath
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2020-05-30

9.  Lung-Protective Ventilation Initiated in the Emergency Department (LOV-ED): A Quasi-Experimental, Before-After Trial.

Authors:  Brian M Fuller; Ian T Ferguson; Nicholas M Mohr; Anne M Drewry; Christopher Palmer; Brian T Wessman; Enyo Ablordeppey; Jacob Keeperman; Robert J Stephens; Cristopher C Briscoe; Angelina A Kolomiets; Richard S Hotchkiss; Marin H Kollef
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 5.721

10.  Designing Better, Not Just Bigger, Multicenter Critical Care Trials.

Authors:  Michael O Harhay; James A Russell
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.