scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that cisapride enhances gastric emptying in critically ill patients and studies to examine the effect of cisap Ride on tolerance to enteral nutrition, infectious morbidity, and other clinically important outcomes are warranted.
Abstract: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients to evaluate the effect of cisapride on gastric emptying using an acetaminophen absorption model. We enrolled 72 patients expected to remain in the ICU for more than 48 h; 39% were female; the average age was 54.0 +/- 19.1 yr; 47% were postoperative, 83% were receiving narcotics, and the mean simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) was 9.5 +/- 3.0. Within 72 h of admission to ICU, 1.6 g of acetaminophen suspension was administered via a nasogastric tube into the stomach (Day 1). Blood samples were drawn at baseline, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180 min for measurement of plasma acetaminophen levels. The following morning (Day 2), patients were randomized to receive 20 mg of cisapride or placebo and gastric emptying was again assessed. The difference (Day 2-Day 1) in the maximal plasma concentration was 49.1 mumol/L in the cisapride groups compared with 12.3 mumol/L in the placebo group (p = 0.005) and the time to reach maximal concentration was significantly shorter in the cisapride group (-40.8 min versus -4.2 min, p = 0.02). The difference in area under the time-acetaminophen concentration curve was also greater in the patients receiving cisapride (5,534 versus 2,832, p = 0.09). We conclude that cisapride enhances gastric emptying in critically ill patients. Studies to examine the effect of cisapride on tolerance to enteral nutrition, infectious morbidity, and other clinically important outcomes are warranted.

71 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the critical care literature, very little useful economic information exists to help decision-makers maximize efficiency in their own setting.
Abstract: Objective To determine the extent to which economic evaluations published in the critical care literature provide information that can help us to improve the efficiency of our unit. Data sources We searched computerized bibliographic databases and manually searched key critical care journals to retrieve all economic evaluations. Study selection We included economic evaluations that dealt with clinical problems relevant to the practice of adult critical care and that compared competing healthcare interventions. Data abstraction Included articles were further evaluated using criteria for minimal methodologic soundness, adopted from the literature, and criteria that we developed to assess the generalizability of results to our clinical setting. Data synthesis We screened 4,167 papers manually and > 450 abstracts and titles in our computer search. One hundred fifty-one papers were retrieved for further evaluation; 29 papers met our inclusion criteria. Of these 29 papers, only 14 (48%) adequately described competing healthcare interventions, 17 (59%) provided sufficient evidence of clinical efficacy, six (21%) identified, measured, and valuated costs appropriately, and three (10%) performed a sensitivity analysis. None of the papers met all four of these criteria for a minimum level of methodologic soundness. Four (14%) of 29 studies which adequately dealt with issues of cost and efficacy were evaluated using our generalizability criteria. Different costing methods precluded the application of the results of three of the four studies to our intensive care unit. Conclusions In the critical care literature, very little useful economic information exists to help decision-makers maximize efficiency in their own setting.

70 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Sep 2004-Chest
TL;DR: There are few implementation strategies that are of unequivocal, consistent benefit, and that are clearly and consistently worth resource investment, and fully informed decisions will require additional research to identify effective guideline implementation strategies.

70 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Nov 2002-Chest
TL;DR: Among patients with allergies and asthma, use of air filters is associated with fewer symptoms and Rigorous sufficiently powered randomized clinical trials are needed to more precisely define the influence of air filtration on health-related quality of life and symptom control for asthmatic patients.

70 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
04 Sep 2003-BMJ
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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