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.

Community implementation of the 3 Wishes Project: an observational study of a compassionate end-of-life care initiative for critically ill patients.

Abstract: Background The 3 Wishes Project (3WP) promotes a personalized dying experience by eliciting and facilitating individualized terminal wishes for patients, families and the clinicians caring for them. We aimed to evaluate the adaptability of the 3WP to a community intensive care unit (ICU), and to describe the patients cared for with this palliative approach, as well as local implementation strategies. Methods The 3WP was implemented in a 15-bed community hospital ICU in southern Ontario from 2017 to 2019. In this observational, descriptive study, we invited adult patients (≥ 18 yr) whose risk of death was deemed to be 95% or greater by the attending physician, or patients undergoing withdrawal of life-support to participate. We abstracted patient data from medical records, as well as the type, timing and cost of each wish, which person or service made and facilitated each wish, and if and why wishes were completed or not. We summarized data both narratively and quantitatively. Results The 3WP helped to realize 479 (99.2%) of 483 terminal wishes for 101 dying patients. This initiative was introduced as an interprofessional intervention and championed by nursing staff who were responsible for most patient enrolment and wish facilitation. Wishes included humanizing the ICU environment for the patient with belongings and blankets, musical performances, smudging and bathing ceremonies, and keepsakes. The cost was $5.39 per patient (standard deviation $22.40), with 430 (89.8%) wishes incurring no cost. Wishes made directly by patients accounted for 30 (6.2%) of wishes; those from family members and ICU staff accounted for 236 (48.9%) and 238 (49.3%) of wishes, respectively. The program comforted patients and their loved ones, motivating clinicians to sustain this end-of-life intervention. Interpretation We documented successful implementation of the 3WP in a community hospital, showing program adaptability and uptake outside of academic centres at relatively low cost. The lack of strict protocolization and personalized design of this intervention underscores its inherent flexibility, with potential to promote individualized end-of-life care in nonacademic hospital wards, homes or hospice.

Prevalence of pituitary disorders associated with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review

Abstract: Pituitary disorders are an often-neglected consequence of traumatic brain injury (TBI). We systematically reviewed their prevalence in studies with low risk of bias including moderate/severe TBI patients.

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 …