Author
Deborah J. Cook
Other affiliations: McMaster University Medical Centre, Queen's University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute ...read more
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.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre1, University of Toronto2, Mount Sinai Hospital3, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute4, University of Ottawa5, McMaster University6, University of British Columbia7, St. Paul's Hospital8, St. Michael's GAA, Sligo9, University Health Network10, Northeastern University11, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center12, University of Alberta13, University of Manitoba14, McGill University15
TL;DR: Physical restraint was common in mechanically ventilated adults managed with a sedation protocol and except for alcohol use, patient characteristics and treatment factors did not predict restraint use.
83 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that in a selected group of patients with back pain caused by vertebral fractures, the mini-OQLQ demonstrated good discriminative and adequate evaluative properties and should be useful in clinical settings.
Abstract: The objective of the study was to evaluate a shortened osteoporosis quality of life questionnaire (OQLQ) in osteoporotic women with back pain due to vertebral fractures. From the longer 30-item OQLQ (four to nine items per domain) we created the mini-OQLQ by choosing the two items with the highest impact in each of five domains (symptoms, physical function, activities of daily living, emotional function, leisure). We administered the OQLQ, the Sickness Impact Profile, the SF-36 and the Brief Pain Index to patients at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 months. The intraclass correlations between baseline and the 2-week follow-up for the five mini-OQLQ domains ranged from 0.72 to 0.86. Cross-sectional correlations between the domains of the mini-OQLQ and other health instruments were moderate to large (0.35-0.80) and greater than predicted. The mini-OQLQ items showed moderate to large correlations with items omitted from the shortened questionnaire (0. 44-0.88). Correlations between the OQLQ domains and the other three instruments were greater than those of the mini-OQLQ, and partial correlations between OQLQ items omitted from the mini-OQLQ and the other three instruments after considering mini-OQLQ items were substantial (0.19-0.71) and statistically significant. Sample sizes of less than 200 per group should be required to detect minimally important differences in parallel-group clinical trials. Longitudinal correlations between the mini-OQLQ and the other measures were often significant but generally lower than predicted (0.10-0.49). The partial correlations revealed that the omitted items explained a significant portion of the longitudinal variance in each domain. We conclude that in a selected group of patients with back pain caused by vertebral fractures, the mini-OQLQ demonstrated good discriminative and adequate evaluative properties. The mini-questionnaire should be useful in clinical settings.
83 citations
TL;DR: Improved understanding of why family members are satisfied or dissatisfied with particular elements of the intensive care unit is provided and this knowledge can be used to modify intensive care units to better meet the physical and emotional needs of the families ofintensive care unit patients.
Abstract: Objectives:To describe the qualitative findings from a family satisfaction survey to identify and describe the themes that characterize family members' intensive care unit experiences.Design:As part of a larger mixed-methods study to determine the relationship between organizational culture and fami
83 citations
University of Alberta1, Cleveland Clinic2, Queen's University3, University of Cape Town4, McMaster University5, Monash University6, The Chinese University of Hong Kong7, University of Copenhagen8, St. John's Medical College9, Narayana Health10, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill11, University of Western Ontario12, Autonomous University of Barcelona13, Autonomous University of Bucaramanga14, Royal Adelaide Hospital15, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University16, Medical University of Vienna17, Cayetano Heredia University18, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center19, University of Tasmania20, CARE Hospitals21, Auckland City Hospital22, McGill University Health Centre23, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires24
TL;DR: It was shown that aspirin did not prevent the primary composite outcome of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction but did increase the risk for major bleeding in patients having noncardiac surgery in the POISE-2 trial.
Abstract: Uncertainty remains about the effects of aspirin in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) having noncardiac surgery. This substudy from a large multicenter trial examines ben...
83 citations
TL;DR: CFS scores can be generated using medical chart review and can be reliably completed by ICU clinicians and research staff, andFrailty scores are similar across ages despite higher illness severity in older patients.
82 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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
46,935 citations
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
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 …
45,105 citations
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.
31,379 citations
Journal Article•
26,749 citations