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.

Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) randomised clinical trial: study protocol.

Abstract: Introduction Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity; the duration of treatment for these infections is understudied.

Building organizational compassion among teams delivering end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: The 3 Wishes Project.

Abstract: Background:The 3 Wishes Project is a semistructured program that improves the quality of care for patients dying in the intensive care unit by eliciting and implementing wishes. This simple interve...

Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial—PROSPECT: protocol for a feasibility randomized pilot trial

Abstract: Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Meta-analysis of probiotic trials suggests a 25 % lower ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and 18 % lower infection rates overall when administered to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, prior trials are small, largely single center, and at high risk of bias. Before a large rigorous trial is launched, testing whether probiotics confer benefit, harm, or have no impact, a pilot trial is needed. The aim of the PROSPECT Pilot Trial is to determine the feasibility of performing a larger trial in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients investigating Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. A priori, we determined that the feasibility of the larger trial would be based on timely recruitment, high protocol adherence, minimal contamination, and an acceptable VAP rate. Patients ≥18 years old in the ICU who are anticipated to receive mechanical ventilation for ≥72 hours will be included. Patients are excluded if they are at increased risk of probiotic-associated infection, have strict enteral medication contraindications, are pregnant, previously enrolled in a related trial, or are receiving palliative care. Following informed consent, patients are randomized in variable unspecified block sizes in a fixed 1:1 ratio, stratified by ICU, and medical, surgical, or trauma admitting diagnosis. Patients receive 1 × 1010 colony forming units of L. rhamnosus GG (Culturelle, Locin Industries Ltd) or an identical placebo suspended in tap water administered twice daily via nasogastric tube in the ICU. Clinical and research staff, patients, and families are blinded. The primary outcomes for this pilot trial are the following: (1) recruitment success, (2) ≥90 % protocol adherence, (3) ≤5 % contamination, and (4) ~10 % VAP rate. Additional clinical outcomes are VAP, other infections, diarrhea (total, antibiotic associated, and Clostridium difficile), ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. The morbidity, mortality, and cost of VAP underscore the need for cost-effective prophylactic interventions. The PROSPECT Pilot Trial is the initial step toward rigorously evaluating whether probiotics decrease nosocomial infections, have no effect, or actually cause infections in critically ill patients. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01782755

β-Blockers in sepsis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials.

Abstract: Introduction Sepsis is a common and deadly complication of infection. As part of the host response, sympathetic stimulation can result in septic myocardial depression, and metabolic, haematological and immunological dysfunction. Administration of β-blockers may attenuate this pathophysiological response to infection, but the effects on clinical outcomes are unknown. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy and safety of β-blockers in adults with sepsis using data from randomised control trials. Methods and analysis We will identify randomised control trials comparing treatment with β-blockers, versus placebo or standard care in adults with sepsis. Data sources will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinical trial registries and conference proceedings. Two reviewers will independently determine trial eligibility. For each included trial, we will conduct duplicate independent data extraction, risk of bias assessment and evaluation of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Ethics and dissemination Our systematic review will evaluate the effects of β-blockers in adults with sepsis, comprehensively summarising and appraising the available evidence from randomised control trials. The results of this systematic review will help clinicians treating patients with sepsis to understand the potential role of β-blockade, and inform future research on this topic. Our findings will be disseminated through conference presentation and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number CRD42016036933.

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 …