Deborah J. Cook

Bio: Deborah J. Cook is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Intensive care unit. The author has an hindex of 173, co-authored 907 publications receiving 148928 citations. Previous affiliations of Deborah J. Cook include McMaster University Medical Centre & Queen's University.

The VA and Medicare HMOs — Complementary or Redundant?

Abstract: To the Editor: U.S. veterans over the age of 65 years may be eligible to enroll in both the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and Medicare health maintenance organizations (HMOs).1–3 Althoug...

Clinician discomfort with life support plans for mechanically ventilated patients.

Abstract: To examine the incidence and predictors of clinician discomfort with life support plans for ICU patients. Prospective cohort in 13 medical-surgical ICUs in four countries. 657 mechanically ventilated adults expected to stay in ICU at least 72 h. Daily we documented the life support plan for mechanical ventilation, inotropes and dialysis, and clinician comfort with these plans. If uncomfortable, clinicians stated whether the plan was too technologically intense (the provision of too many life support modalities or the provision of any modality for too long) or not intense enough, and why. At least one clinician was uncomfortable at least once for 283 (43.1%) patients, primarily because plans were too technologically intense rather than not intense enough (93.9% vs. 6.1%). Predictors of discomfort because plans were too intense were: patient age, medical admission, APACHE II score, poor prior functional status, organ dysfunction, dialysis in ICU, plan to withhold dialysis, plan to withhold mechanical ventilation, first week in the ICU, clinician, and city. Clinician discomfort with life support perceived as too technologically intense is common, experienced mostly by nurses, variable across centers, and is more likely for older, severely ill medical patients, those with acute renal failure, and patients lacking plans to forgo reintubation and ventilation. Acknowledging the sources of discomfort could improve communication and decision making

Clinically important deep vein thrombosis in the intensive care unit: a survey of intensivists.

Abstract: Outside the intensive care unit (ICU), clinically important deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is usually defined as a symptomatic event that leads to objective radiologic confirmation and subsequent treatment. The objective of the present survey is to identify the patient factors and radiologic features of lower limb DVT that intensivists consider more or less likely to make a DVT clinically important in ICU patients. Our definition of clinically important DVT was a DVT likely to result in short-term or long-term morbidity or mortality if left untreated, as opposed to a DVT that is unlikely to have important consequences. We asked respondents to indicate the likelihood that patient factors and ultrasonographic features make a DVT clinically important using a five-point scale (from 1 = much less likely to 5 = much more likely). Of the 71 Canadian intensivists who responded, 70 (99%) rated three patient factors as most likely to make a DVT clinically important: clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism (mean score 4.6), acute or chronic cardiopulmonary morbidity that might limit a patient's ability to tolerate pulmonary embolism (score 4.5), and leg symptoms (score 4.2). Of the ultrasound features, proximal (score 4.7), large (score 4.2), and totally occlusive (score 3.9) thrombi were considered the three most important. When labeling a DVT as clinically important, intensivists rely on different patient specific factors and thrombus characteristics than are used to assess the clinical importance of DVT outside the ICU. The clinical importance of DVT is influenced by unique factors such as cardiopulmonary reserve among mechanically ventilated patients.

The arc of the pulmonary artery catheter.

Abstract: ment and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214-223. 16. Wu YW, Escobar GJ, Grether JK, Croen LA, Greene JD, Newman TB. Chorioamnionitis and cerebral palsy in term and near-term infants. JAMA. 2003;290: 2677-2684. 17. Grether JK, Nelson KB. Maternal infection and cerebral palsy in infants of normal birth weight. JAMA. 1997;278:207-211. 18. Wu YW, Colford JM. Chorioamnionitis as a risk factor for cerebral palsy: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000;284:1417-1424. 19. Dammann O, Leviton A. Brain damage in preterm newborns: might enhancement of developmentally regulated endogenous protection open a door for prevention? Pediatrics. 1999;104(3 pt 1):541-550. 20. Leviton A, Dammann O, O’Shea TM, Paneth N. Adult stroke and perinatal brain damage: like grandparent, like grandchild? Neuropediatrics. 2002;33:281287.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …