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 validation of a questionnaire to assess barriers to enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a multicenter international survey

Abstract: A growing body of literature supports the need to identify and address barriers to knowledge use as a strategy to improve care delivery. To this end, we developed a questionnaire to assess barriers to enterally feeding critically ill adult patients, and sought to gain evidence to support the construct validity of this instrument by testing the hypothesis that barriers identified by the questionnaire are inversely associated with nutrition performance. We conducted a multilevel multivariable regression analysis of data from an observational study in 55 Intensive Care Units (ICUs) from 5 geographic regions. Data on nutrition practices were abstracted from 1153 patient charts, and 1439 critical care nurses completed the ‘Barriers to Enterally Feeding critically Ill Patients’ questionnaire. Our primary outcome was adequacy of calories from enteral nutrition (proportion of prescribed calories received enterally) and our primary predictor of interest was a barrier score derived from ratings of importance of items in the questionnaire. The mean adequacy of calories from enteral nutrition was 48 (Standard Deviation (SD)17)%. Evaluation for confounding identified patient type, proportion of nurse respondents working in the ICU greater than 5 years, and geographic region as important covariates. In a regression model adjusting for these covariates plus evaluable nutrition days and APACHE II score, we observed that a 10 point increase in overall barrier score is associated with a 3.5 (Standard Error (SE)1.3)% decrease in enteral nutrition adequacy (p-values <0.01). Our results provide evidence to support our a priori hypothesis that barriers negatively impact the provision of nutrition in ICUs, suggesting that our recently developed questionnaire may be a promising tool to identify these important factors, and guide the selection of interventions to optimize nutrition practice. Further research is required to illuminate if and how the type of barrier, profession of the provider, and geographic location of the hospital may influence this association.

Corticosteroid use in the intensive care unit: a survey of intensivists.

Abstract: The efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in many critical illnesses remains uncertain. Our primary objective was to survey intensivists in North America about their perceived use of corticosteroids in clinical practice. Self-administered paper survey. Intensivists in academic hospitals with clinical trial expertise in critical illness. We generated questionnaire items in focus groups and refined them after assessments of clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability and pilot testing. We administered the survey to experienced intensivists practicing in selected North American centres actively enrolling patients in the multicentre Oscillation for ARDS Treated Early (OSCILLATE) Trial (ISRCTN87124254). Respondents used a four-point scale to grade how frequently they would administer corticosteroids in 14 clinical settings. They also reported their opinions on 16 potential near-absolute indications or contraindications for the use of corticosteroids. Our response rate was 82% (103/125). Respondents were general internists (50%), respirologists (22%), anesthesiologists (21%), and surgeons (7%) who practiced in mixed medical-surgical units. A majority of respondents reported almost always prescribing corticosteroids in the setting of significant bronchospasm in a mechanically ventilated patient (94%), recent corticosteroid use and low blood pressure (93%), and vasopressor-refractory septic shock (52%). Although more than half of respondents stated they would almost never prescribe corticosteroids in severe community-acquired pneumonia (81%), acute lung injury (ALI, 76%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 65%), and severe ARDS (51%), variability increased with severity of acute lung injury. Near-absolute indications selected by most respondents included known adrenal insufficiency (99%) and suspicion of cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (89%), connective tissue disease (85%), or other potentially corticosteroid-responsive illnesses (85%). Respondents reported rarely prescribing corticosteroids for ALI, but accepted them for bronchospasm, suspected adrenal insufficiency due to previous corticosteroid use, and vasopressor-refractory septic shock. These competing indications will complicate the design and interpretation of any future large-scale trial of corticosteroids in critical illness.

Development and psychometric properties of a questionnaire to assess barriers to feeding critically ill patients.

Abstract: Background To successfully implement the recommendations of critical care nutrition guidelines, one potential approach is to identify barriers to providing optimal enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and then address these barriers systematically. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire to assess barriers to enterally feeding critically ill patients and to conduct preliminary validity testing of the new instrument.

Renal outcomes following hydroxyethyl starch resuscitation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate the impact of HES solutions on adverse renal outcomes and mortality in critically ill patients requiring acute volume resuscitation. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Data Sources: We searched electronic databases from 1950 to 2007 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and the SCOPUS database). Conference proceedings and grey literature sources were also searched from 2002-2007. Review Methods: We included all randomised controlled trials of patients requiring acute volume resuscitation who received HES compared to an alternative resuscitation fluid. No restrictions were considered regarding language or publication type. Data were independently extracted in duplicate. Results:Of 2381 citations reviewed, we included 22 trials (n=1866) in the analysis. Patients receiving HES were more likely to receive renal replacement therapy [odds ratio [OR] 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.99, I^210.5%)]. This was also true for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock [OR 1.82 (95% CI 1.27-2.62, I^20%)]. In high quality trials, multicentre trials, and in reports indicating adequate allocation concealment, there was a trend toward increased risk of death associated with HES. Other adverse events were not systematically evaluated and were poorly reported. Limitations: Considerable clinical and methodologic heterogeneity exists among these trials. Conclusions: The use of HES for volume resuscitation in critically ill patients is associated with increased use of renal replacement therapy and may result in increased mortality. We caution against the routine use of HES for volume resuscitation in critically ill patients.

Critical Care Cardiology Research A Call to Action

Abstract: The breadth and volume of cardiovascular research have outpaced those of most other medical specialties over the past few decades. These investigations have had an enormous impact on improving care and clinical outcomes, including patients in emergency and critical care settings. Over this same time frame, the spectrum of illnesses within coronary care units (CCU) has changed markedly. In its original concept, the CCU was designed for arrhythmia monitoring and treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Today, the CCU has evolved into a critical care environment that delivers care both to patients with acute single-system cardiovascular illness and to patients with more comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction.1 The prevalence of heart failure, renal failure, and multisystem organ failure has increased in recent years; accordingly, the use of mechanical ventilation and vasoactive infusions has also risen steadily.2,3 The changing profiles of patients, drugs, and devices reflect recent medical evolution and represent future clinical and research opportunities. In light of these developments, the American Heart Association recently released a scientific statement advocating for staffing, structural, and training transformations in CCUs; however, the necessary concurrent critical care cardiology research strategy was less clearly defined.4 Although our knowledge of cardiac disease treatment has markedly progressed, clinical research in the population of cardiac patients with multisystem failure has been much more limited. Although some studies of complex patients such as those with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock have been conducted, significant knowledge and treatment gaps persist. In this article, we discuss the important historical advances in the care of critically ill cardiology patients and highlight the perceived research needs, barriers, and potential solutions that could improve conduct and impact of critical care cardiology research. Several randomized trials and observational reports in the cardiac intensive care setting have advanced …

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 …