Author
Adrienne G. Randolph
Other affiliations: Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Utah, Primary Children's Hospital ...read more
Bio: Adrienne G. Randolph is an academic researcher from Boston Children's Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Intensive care. The author has an hindex of 56, co-authored 182 publications receiving 19024 citations. Previous affiliations of Adrienne G. Randolph include Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario & University of Utah.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
National Institutes of Health1, North Shore-LIJ Health System2, University of Washington3, Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare4, University of Massachusetts Medical School5, Johns Hopkins University6, Rhode Island Hospital7, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention8, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center9, Harvard University10, University of Nebraska Medical Center11, University of Michigan12
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed guidelines for healthcare personnel who insert intravascular catheters and for persons responsible for surveillance and control of infections in hospital, outpatient, and home healthcare settings.
3,797 citations
••
TL;DR: The current criteria used to define SIRS and sepsis in adults were modified to incorporate pediatric physiologic variables appropriate for the following subcategories of children: newborn, neonate, infant, child, and adolescent.
Abstract: Objective: Although general definitions of the sepsis continuum have been published for adults, no such work has been done for the pediatric population. Physiologic and laboratory variables used to define the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and organ dysfunction require modification for the developmental stages of children. An international panel of 20 experts in sepsis and clinical research from five countries (Canada, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States) was convened to modify the published adult consensus definitions of infection, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction for children. Design: Consensus conference. Methods: This document describes the issues surrounding consensus on four major questions addressed at the meeting: a) How should the pediatric age groups affected by sepsis be delineated? b) What are the specific definitions of pediatric SIRS, infection, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock? c) What are the specific definitions of pediatric organ failure and the validity of pediatric organ failure scores? d) What are the appropriate study populations and study end points required to successfully conduct clinical trials in pediatric sepsis? Five subgroups first met separately and then together to evaluate the following areas: signs and symptoms of sepsis, cell markers, cytokines, microbiological data, and coagulation variables. All conference participants approved the final draft of the proceedings of the meeting. Results: Conference attendees modified the current criteria used to define SIRS and sepsis in adults to incorporate pediatric physiologic variables appropriate for the following subcategories of children: newborn, neonate, infant, child, and adolescent. In addition, the SIRS definition was modified so that either criteria for fever or white blood count had to be met. We also defined various organ dysfunction categories, severe sepsis, and septic shock specifically for children. Although no firm conclusion was made regarding a single appropriate study end point, a novel nonmortality end point, organ failure-free days, was considered optimal for pediatric clinical trials given the relatively low incidence of mortality in pediatric sepsis compared with adult populations. Conclusion: We modified the adult SIRS criteria for children. In addition, we revised definitions of severe sepsis and septic shock for the pediatric population. Our goal is for these first-generation pediatric definitions and criteria to facilitate the performance of successful clinical studies in children with sepsis. (Pediatr Crit Care Med 2005; 6:2‐8)
2,997 citations
••
Emory University1, United States Public Health Service2, Rutgers University3, Harvard University4, Central Michigan University5, Westchester Medical Center6, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai7, New York University8, Saint Barnabas Medical Center9, University of Pennsylvania10, SUNY Downstate Medical Center11, Yale University12, University of Colorado Denver13, Boston Children's Hospital14, Case Western Reserve University15, Louisiana State University16, University of Washington17, Johns Hopkins University18, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston19, University of Mississippi20, Tufts University21, Vanderbilt University22
TL;DR: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with SARS-CoV-2 led to serious and life-threatening illness in previously healthy children and adolescents.
Abstract: Background Understanding the epidemiology and clinical course of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and its temporal association with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19)...
1,887 citations
••
National Institutes of Health1, University of Washington2, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention3, University of Massachusetts Medical School4, University of Wisconsin-Madison5, Brown University6, Harvard University7, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center8, Sharp Memorial Hospital9, Columbia University10, University of Minnesota11, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill12, Boston Children's Hospital13
TL;DR: The recommended preventive strategies with the strongest supportive evidence are education and training of healthcare providers who insert and maintain catheters, and maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion, which can reduce the risk for serious catheter-related infection.
Abstract: Background:Although many catheter-related blood-stream infections (CRBSIs) are preventable, measures to reduce these infections are not uniformly implementedObjective:To update an existing evidenced-based guideline that promotes strategies to prevent CRBSIsData Sources:The MEDLINE database, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of review articles and book chapters were searched for relevant articlesStudies Included:Laboratory-based studies, controlled clinical trials, prospective interventional trials, and epidemiologic investigationsOutcome Measures:Reduction in CRBSI, catheter colonization, or catheter-related infectionSynthesis:The recommended preventive strategies with the strongest supportive evidence are education and training of healthcare providers who insert and maintain catheters; maximal sterile barrier precautions during central venous catheter insertion; use of a 2% chlorhexidine preparation for skin antisepsis; no routine replacement of central venous catheters for prevention of infection; and use of antiseptic/antibiotic-impregnated short-term central venous catheters if the rate of infection is high despite adherence to other strategies (ie, education and training, maximal sterile barrier precautions, and 2% chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis)Conclusion:Successful implementation of these evidence-based interventions can reduce the risk for serious catheter-related infection
985 citations
••
TL;DR: When used for vessel location andCatheter placement real-time, ultrasound guidance or Doppler ultrasound guidance improves success rates and decreases the complications associated with internal jugular and subclavian venous catheter placement.
Abstract: ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of real-time ultrasound guidance using a regular or Doppler ultrasound technique for placement of central venous catheters.Data SourcesWe searched for published and unpublished research using MEDLINE, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, conference
893 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
••
TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
13,813 citations
••
Cooper University Hospital1, St George's Hospital2, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island3, Emory University4, University of Colorado Denver5, McMaster University6, Washington University in St. Louis7, University of Chicago8, University of Jena9, Rush University Medical Center10, University of Pittsburgh11, University of Pennsylvania12, Federal University of São Paulo13, University of Toronto14, Royal Perth Hospital15, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust16, Université libre de Bruxelles17
TL;DR: An update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008 is provided.
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke
9,137 citations
••
TL;DR: The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006, and a broader consortium sharing and support model was created.
8,712 citations
••
TL;DR: This Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and includes an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.
8,021 citations