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.

Parallel Pilot Trials of Screening Frequency for Liberation fromMechanical Ventilation the RELEASE Trial and SENIOR Trial Protocols

Abstract: Rationale: Reducing the duration of invasive ventilation is a priority in the intensive care unit (ICU). Once daily screening to identify candidates for spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) is poorly aligned with the continuous care ICU environment. Objectives: The primary objective of the pilot randomized RELEASE and SENIOR trials is to assess our ability to recruit 50 non-elderly ( 65 years) critically ill adults into parallel trials comparing once vs at least twice daily screening. Secondary objectives are to evaluate clinicians’ adherence to the screening protocols, assess current practices related to management of sedation, analgesia, delirium and patient mobilization before screening assessments, identify barriers to enrollment, characterize trial participants based on weaning difficulty, and obtain preliminary estimates of the alternative screening strategies on clinical outcomes. In the SENIOR trial, we will also compare recruitment metrics and intervention effect between elderly (65 to 80 years) and very elderly (>80 years) participants. Methods: In both trials, we will enroll critically ill adults receiving invasive ventilation for at least 24 hours who can initiate or trigger breaths. In both arms, Respiratory Therapists (RTs) will screen patients between 06:00 and 08:00 hours daily to identify SBT candidates. In the ‘at least twice daily screening’ arm, RTs will also screen patients between 13:00 and 15:00 hours with additional screening periods permitted at clinicians’ discretion. We will consider the studies feasible if we can recruit on average, 1 to 2 patients per month per ICU and attain at least 80% protocol adherence. Relevance: Screening patients more frequently and conducting more frequent SBTs has the potential to reduce the duration of time spent on invasive ventilation and in the ICU. Information garnered from these pilot randomized trials will inform the design of a large, future trial. Clinical trial study: The RELEASE Trial ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02001220; The SENIOR Trial ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02243449

Frequency of Screening and SBT Technique Trial

Abstract: Rationale: Research supports the use of screening protocols to identify patients who are candidates for weaning from mechanical ventilation, and the use of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) to predict ability to breathe spontaneously. However, once daily screening is poorly aligned with 24-hour continuous care in the intensive care unit (ICU) environment and the most effective SBT technique is not known. The optimal strategy to liberate our sickest patients from ventilators remains to be determined. Objectives: To assess our ability to recruit critically ill adults and adhere to the screening and SBT protocols. Methods: We propose a pilot, factorial design, randomized trial comparing once-daily versus at least twice daily screening and pressure support (PS) ± positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (inspiratory ± expiratory support) or T-piece (no support) as the SBT technique in critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for at least 24 hours in 11 North American ICUs. Respiratory Therapists (RTs) will screen all enrolled patients between 06:00 and 08:00 hours daily to identify SBT candidates. Patients in the at least twice daily screening arms will also be screened between 13:00 and 15:00 hours; additional screening will be permitted at clinician’s discretion. Once a screening assessment is passed, an SBT will be conducted with the assigned technique. Outcomes: The study will be considered feasible if at least 1 to 2 patients per ICU per month are recruited and if the screening and SBT protocols are adhered to >80% of the time. Relevance: The availability of RTs in ICUs presents an important opportunity to screen patients more frequently, conduct more frequent SBTs, and reduce the duration of invasive ventilation and ICU stay. FAST Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov NCT02399267.

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 …