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.

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparins for Hemodialysis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Abstract: Low molecular weight heparins (LWMH) are the preferred initial treatment for many thromboembolic disorders but are renally excreted and relatively contraindicated in patients with renal failure because of concerns of increased bleeding risks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LMWH compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for preventing thrombosis of the extracorporeal dialysis circuit. Studies were identified with the use of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and FirstSearch; reference lists were reviewed; and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Randomized, controlled trials that compared an LMWH with another anticoagulant during hemodialysis in patients with ESRD and reported at least one of bleeding, extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, or anti-Xa levels were chosen. Two reviewers independently extracted data on methodologic quality, study design, clinical outcomes, and anti-Xa levels. Seventeen trials were included in this systematic review, 11 of which were included in the meta-analysis. It was found that LMWH did not significantly affect the number of bleeding events (relative risk, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 3.43), bleeding assessed by vascular access compression time (weighted mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -2.75 to 1.02), or extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.91) as compared with UFH. LMWH seem to be as safe as UFH in terms of bleeding complications and as effective as UFH in preventing extracorporeal circuit thrombosis. However, inferences from these trials assessing anticoagulation for patients who undergo hemodialysis will continue to be weak until larger, more rigorous randomized trials are conducted.

Oxygenation Response to Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Predicts Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Secondary Analysis of the LOVS and ExPress Trials

Abstract: Rationale: Previous trials of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to demonstrate mortality benefit, possibly because of differences in lung recruitability among patients with ARDS.Objectives: To determine whether the physiological response to increased PEEP is associated with mortality.Methods: In a secondary analysis of the Lung Open Ventilation Study (LOVS, n = 983), we examined the relationship between the initial response to changes in PEEP after randomization and mortality. We sought to corroborate our findings using data from a different trial of higher PEEP (ExPress, n = 749).Measurements and Main Results: The oxygenation response (change in ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen: P/F) after the initial change in PEEP after randomization varied widely (median, 9.5 mm Hg; interquartile range, –16 to 47) and was only weakly related to baseline P/F or the magnitude of PEEP change. Among patients in wh...

Acquired neuromuscular disorders in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Abstract: Objective: To summarize the prospective clinical studies of neuromuscular abnormalities in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Study identification and selection: Studies were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, references in primary and review articles, personal files, and contact with authors. Through duplicate independent review, we selected prospective cohort studies evaluating ICU-acquired neuromuscular disorders. Data abstraction: In duplicate, independently, we abstracted key data regarding design features, the population, clinical and laboratory diagnostic tests, and clinical outcomes. Results: We identified eight studies that enrolled 242 patients. Inception cohorts varied; some were mechanically ventilated patients for ≥ 5 days, others were based on a diagnosis of sepsis, organ failure, or severe asthma while others were selected on the basis of exposure to muscle relaxants, or because of participation in muscle biochemistry studies. Weakness was systematically assessed in two of the eight studies, concerning patients with severe asthma, with a reported frequency of 36 and 70 %, respectively. Electrophysiologic and histologic abnormalities consisted of both peripheral nerve and muscle involvement and were frequently reported, even in non-selected ICU patients. In a population of patients mechanically ventilated for more than 5 days, electrophysiologic abnormalities were reported in 76 % of cases. Two studies showed a clinically important increase (5 and 9 days, respectively) in duration of mechanical ventilation and a mortality twice as high in patients with critical illness neuromuscular abnormalities, compared to those without. Conclusions: Prospective studies of ICU-acquired neuromuscular abnormalities include a small number of patients with various electrophysiologic findings but insufficiently reported clinical correlations. Evaluation of risk factors for these disorders and studies examining their contribution to weaning difficulties and long-term disability are needed.

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 …