Ville Pettilä1,2, Peter Buhl Hjortrup3, Stephan M Jakob4, Erika Wilkman5, Anders Perner3,6, Jukka Takala4. 1. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. ville.pettilae@insel.ch. 2. Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. ville.pettilae@insel.ch. 3. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Division of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 6. CRIC, Center of Research for Intensive Care, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The interpretation of septic shock trial data is profoundly affected by patients, control intervention, co-interventions and selected outcome measures. We evaluated the reporting of control groups in recent septic shock trials. METHODS: We searched for original articles presenting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in adult septic shock patients from 2006 to 2016. We included RCTs focusing on septic shock patients with at least two parallel groups and at least 50 patients in the control group. We selected and evaluated data items regarding patients, control group characteristics, and mortality outcomes, and calculated a data completeness score to provide an overall view of quality of reporting. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included (mean n = 287 patients and 71 % of eligible patients were randomized). Of the 24 studies, 14 (58 %) presented baseline data on vasopressors and 58 % the proportion of patients with elevated lactate values. Five studies (21 %) provided data to estimate the proportion of septic shock patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition. The mean data completeness score was 19 out of 36 (range 8-32). Of 18 predefined control group characteristics, a mean of 8 (range 2-17) were reported. Only 2 (8 %) trials provided adequate data to confirm that their control group treatment represented usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Recent trials in septic shock provide inadequate data on the control group treatment and hemodynamic values. We propose a standardized trial dataset to be created and validated, comprising characteristics of patient population, interventions administered, hemodynamic values achieved, surrogate organ dysfunction, and mortality outcomes, to allow better analysis and interpretation of future trial results.
PURPOSE: The interpretation of septic shock trial data is profoundly affected by patients, control intervention, co-interventions and selected outcome measures. We evaluated the reporting of control groups in recent septic shock trials. METHODS: We searched for original articles presenting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in adult septic shockpatients from 2006 to 2016. We included RCTs focusing on septic shockpatients with at least two parallel groups and at least 50 patients in the control group. We selected and evaluated data items regarding patients, control group characteristics, and mortality outcomes, and calculated a data completeness score to provide an overall view of quality of reporting. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included (mean n = 287 patients and 71 % of eligible patients were randomized). Of the 24 studies, 14 (58 %) presented baseline data on vasopressors and 58 % the proportion of patients with elevated lactate values. Five studies (21 %) provided data to estimate the proportion of septic shockpatients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition. The mean data completeness score was 19 out of 36 (range 8-32). Of 18 predefined control group characteristics, a mean of 8 (range 2-17) were reported. Only 2 (8 %) trials provided adequate data to confirm that their control group treatment represented usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Recent trials in septic shock provide inadequate data on the control group treatment and hemodynamic values. We propose a standardized trial dataset to be created and validated, comprising characteristics of patient population, interventions administered, hemodynamic values achieved, surrogate organ dysfunction, and mortality outcomes, to allow better analysis and interpretation of future trial results.
Entities:
Keywords:
Control group; Randomized; Reporting; Septic shock; Standardization; Trial
Authors: Daniel De Backer; Patrick Biston; Jacques Devriendt; Christian Madl; Didier Chochrad; Cesar Aldecoa; Alexandre Brasseur; Pierre Defrance; Philippe Gottignies; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Patrick M Honoré; Paul Perez; Sean M Bagshaw; Hubert Grand; Jean-Luc Canivet; Antoine Dewitte; Claire Flamens; Wilfried Pujol; Anne-Sophie Grandoulier; Catherine Fleureau; Rita Jacobs; Christophe Broux; Hervé Floch; Olivier Branchard; Stephane Franck; Hadrien Rozé; Vincent Collin; Willem Boer; Joachim Calderon; Bernard Gauche; Herbert D Spapen; Gérard Janvier; Alexandre Ouattara Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jean-Louis Vincent; John C Marshall; R Phillip Dellinger; Steven G Simonson; Kalpalatha Guntupalli; Mitchell M Levy; Mervyn Singer; Rajesh Malik Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Dianne P Stephens; Jane H Thomas; Alisa Higgins; Michael Bailey; Nicholas M Anstey; Bart J Currie; Allen C Cheng Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: James A Russell; Keith R Walley; Joel Singer; Anthony C Gordon; Paul C Hébert; D James Cooper; Cheryl L Holmes; Sangeeta Mehta; John T Granton; Michelle M Storms; Deborah J Cook; Jeffrey J Presneill; Dieter Ayers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harm-Jan de Grooth; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Jonne Postema; Stephan A Loer; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Armand R Girbes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jean-François Timsit; Marlieke E A de Kraker; Harriet Sommer; Emmanuel Weiss; Esther Bettiol; Martin Wolkewitz; Stavros Nikolakopoulos; David Wilson; Stephan Harbarth Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael Bauer; Herwig Gerlach; Tobias Vogelmann; Franziska Preissing; Julia Stiefel; Daniel Adam Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Jan Wernerman; Kenneth B Christopher; Djillali Annane; Michael P Casaer; Craig M Coopersmith; Adam M Deane; Elisabeth De Waele; Gunnar Elke; Carole Ichai; Constantine J Karvellas; Stephen A McClave; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Olav Rooyackers; Renee D Stapleton; Jukka Takala; Arthur R H van Zanten; Paul E Wischmeyer; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Harm-Jan de Grooth; Jonne Postema; Stephan A Loer; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Armand R Girbes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 17.440