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.

Integrating mortality and morbidity outcomes: using quality-adjusted life years in critical care trials.

Abstract: Rationale: Outcome measures that integrate mortality and morbidity, like quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), have been proposed for critical care clinical trials.Objectives: We sought to describe the distribution of QALYs in critically ill patients and estimate sample size requirements for a hypothetical trial using QALYs as the primary outcome.Methods: We used data from a prospective cohort study of survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome to generate utility values and calculate QALYs at 6 and 12 months. Using multiple simulations, we estimated the required sample sizes for multiple outcome scenarios in a hypothetical trial, including a base-case wherein the intervention improved both mortality and QALYs among survivors.Measurements and Main Results: From 195 enrolled patients, follow-up was sufficient to generate QALY outcomes for 168 (86.2%) at 6 months and 159 (81.5%) at 1 year. For a hypothetical intervention that reduced mortality from 48 to 44% and improved QALYs by 0.025 in survivors at ...

Nonleg Venous Thrombosis in Critically Ill Adults: A Nested Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract: Importance Critically ill patients are at risk of venous thrombosis, and therefore guidelines recommend daily thromboprophylaxis. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) commonly occurs in the lower extremities but can occur in other sites including the head and neck, trunk, and upper extremities. The risk of nonleg deep venous thromboses (NLDVTs), predisposing factors, and the association between NLDVTs and pulmonary embolism (PE) or death are unclear. Objective To describe the frequency, anatomical location, risk factors, management, and consequences of NLDVTs in a large cohort of medical-surgical critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants A nested prospective cohort study in the setting of secondary and tertiary care intensive care units (ICUs). The study population comprised 3746 patients, who were expected to remain in the ICU for at least 3 days and were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of dalteparin vs standard heparin for thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures The proportion of patients who had NLDVTs, the mean number per patient, and the anatomical location. We characterized NLDVTs as prevalent or incident (identified within 72 hours of ICU admission or thereafter) and whether they were catheter related or not. We used multivariable regression models to evaluate risk factors for NLDVT and to examine subsequent anticoagulant therapy, associated PE, and death. Results Of 3746 trial patients, 84 (2.2%) developed 1 or more non–leg vein thromboses (superficial or deep, proximal or distal). Thromboses were more commonly incident (n = 75 [2.0%]) than prevalent (n = 9 [0.2%]) ( P P 9 /L. Conclusions and Relevance Despite universal heparin thromboprophylaxis, nonleg thromboses are found in 2.2% of medical-surgical critically ill patients, primarily in deep veins and proximal veins. Patients who have a malignant condition may have a significantly higher risk of developing NLDVT, and patients with NLDVT, compared with those without, appeared to be at higher risk of PE but not higher risk of death. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00182143

Effect of increasing doses of beta agonists on spirometric parameters, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic airflow limitation.

Abstract: BACKGROUND--A study was undertaken to determine the impact of different doses of inhaled terbutaline on peak flow rates, spirometric parameters, functional exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic airflow limitation. METHODS--A double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, multiple crossover trial was conducted with treatment periods of one week. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic airflow limitation and FEV1 below 70% predicted after administration of bronchodilator were recruited from secondary care respiratory practices, and the effect of 500, 1000, and 1500 micrograms inhaled terbutaline four times daily on spirometric parameters (FEV1, FVC), maximum inspiratory pressures, six minute walking distance, and health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, Quality of Well Being, Standard Gamble) was measured. RESULTS--Twenty five patients completed the trial. Peak flow rates and FEV1 showed statistically significant but clinically trivial improvement on the higher drug doses. Results of maximum inspiratory pressure measurements, walk test distance, and quality of life measures showed minimal differences on the different dosages, and none of the differences approached conventional statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS--Regular use of beta agonists in doses higher than two puffs four times a day is very unlikely to provide additional functional or symptomatic benefit to patients with chronic airflow limitation.

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 …