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.

Mortality As a Measure of Treatment Effect in Clinical Trials Recruiting Critically Ill Patients*

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: All-cause mortality is a common measure of treatment effect in ICU-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We sought to understand the performance characteristics of a mortality endpoint by evaluating its temporal course, responsiveness to differential treatment effects, and impact when used as an outcome measure in trials of acute illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched OVID Medline for RCTs published from 1990 to 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed RCTs that had randomized greater than or equal to 100 patients, were published in one of five high-impact general medical or eight critical care journals, and reported mortality at two or more distinct time points. We excluded trials recruiting pediatric or neonatal patients and cluster RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality by randomization group was recorded from the article or estimated from survival curves. Trial impact was assessed by inclusion of results in clinical practice guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 2,592 potentially eligible trials, we included 343 RCTs (228,784 adult patients). While one third of all deaths by 180 days had occurred by day 7, the risk difference between study arms continued to increase until day 60 (p = 0.01) and possibly day 90 (p = 0.07) and remained stable thereafter. The number of deaths at ICU discharge approximated those at 28–30 days (95% [interquartile range [IQR], 86–106%]), and deaths at hospital discharge approximated those at 60 days (99% [IQR, 94–104%]). Only 13 of 43 interventions (30.2%) showing a mortality benefit have been adopted into widespread clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a conceptual framework for choosing a time horizon and interpreting mortality outcome in trials of acute illness. Differential mortality effects persist for 60 to 90 days following recruitment. Location-based measures approximate time-based measures for trials conducted outside the United States. The documentation of a mortality reduction has had a modest impact on practice.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis in intensive care unit patients

Abstract: Epidemiologic trends in bleeding definitions indicate a move to study primarily clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The two major risk factors for this are the presence of coagulopathy and the need for mechanical ventilation. Antacids, histamine-2-receptor antagonists and sucralfate appear equally efficacious at bleeding prevention. Synthesizing the results of randomized trials comparing these agents in terms of their effect on pneumonia prevention, sucralfate appears to be associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia. This awaits confirmation in large rigorous studies to minimize random and systematic error. Clinical policy needs to incorporate both the clinical and the economic consequences of administering these drugs.

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 …