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.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the setting of severe, acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: more effective and less expensive.

Abstract: ObjectiveThe use of noninvasive ventilation for patients with acute respiratory failure has become increasingly popular over the last decade. Although the literature provides good evidence for the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in addition to standard therapy compared with standard therapy

The ICM research agenda on intensive care unit-acquired weakness

Abstract: We present areas of uncertainty concerning intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and identify areas for future research. Age, pre-ICU functional and cognitive state, concurrent illness, frailty, and health trajectories impact outcomes and should be assessed to stratify patients. In the ICU, early assessment of limb and diaphragm muscle strength and function using nonvolitional tests may be useful, but comparison with established methods of global and specific muscle strength and physical function and determination of their reliability and normal values would be important to advance these techniques. Serial measurements of limb and respiratory muscle strength, and systematic screening for dysphagia, would be helpful to clarify if and how weakness of these muscle groups is independently associated with outcome. ICUAW, delirium, and sedatives and analgesics may interact with each other, amplifying the effects of each individual factor. Reduced mobility in patients with hypoactive delirium needs investigations into dysfunction of central and peripheral nervous system motor pathways. Interventional nutritional studies should include muscle mass, strength, and physical function as outcomes, and prioritize elucidation of mechanisms. At follow-up, ICU survivors may suffer from prolonged muscle weakness and wasting and other physical impairments, as well as fatigue without demonstrable weakness on examination. Further studies should evaluate the prevalence and severity of fatigue in ICU survivors and define its association with psychiatric disorders, pain, cognitive impairment, and axonal loss. Finally, methodological issues, including accounting for baseline status, handling of missing data, and inclusion of patient-centered outcome measures should be addressed in future studies.

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XV. How to Use an Article About Disease Probability for Differential Diagnosis

Abstract: CLINICAL SCENARIO You are an experienced clinician working at a hospital emergency department. One morning, a 33-year-old man presents with palpitations. He describes the new onset of episodes of fast, regular chest pounding, which come on gradually, last 1 to 2 minutes, and occur several times a day. He reports no relation of symptoms to activities and no change in exercise tolerance. He is very anxious and tells you he fears heart disease. He has no other symptoms, no personal or family history of heart disease, and takes no medications. His heart rate is 90 bpm and regular, and physical examination of his eyes, thyroid gland, lungs, and heart is normal. His 12-lead electrocardiogram is normal, without arrhythmia or signs of pre-excitation. You suspect his anxiety explains his palpitations, that they are mediated by hyperventilation, and are possibly part of a panic attack. While he has no findings of cardiac arrhythmia or hyperthyroidism, you wonder if these disorders are common enough in the emergency department setting to consider seriously. You reject pheochromocytoma as too unlikely. Thus, you can list causes of palpitations, but want more information about the frequency of these causes to choose a diagnostic work-up. You ask the question: “In patients presenting with palpitations, what is the frequency of underlying disorders?”

Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal.

Abstract: Objective:To assess the methodologic quality of meta-analyses of general surgery topics published in peer-reviewed journals.Summary Background Data:Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are used to seek, summarize, and interpret primary studies on a given topic. Accordingly, systematic reviews and me

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 …