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
TL;DR: Lack of ICU recall and delusional memories were common after ICU discharge despite the use of sedation strategies that promoted wakefulness and types of memories reported were not influenced by the trial sedation strategy.
Abstract: Objectives:To 1) describe factual, emotional, and delusional memories of ICU stay for patients enrolled in the SLEAP (Daily sedation interruption in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients cared for with a sedation protocol) trial; 2) compare characteristics of patients with and without ICU
37 citations
TL;DR: It is found that there is no significant difference in rates of mucosal prolapse or defecation scores for LAARP compared to OPEN for children with RB/RP-ARMs, however, studies are small and of poor-moderate quality and results are heterogeneous.
Abstract: The laparoscopically-assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) for recto-bladderneck and recto-prostatic anorectal malformations (RB/RP-ARMs) is believed to improve patient outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the effect of LAARP on postoperative mucosal prolapse and defecation dysfunction. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature was performed (2000–2014). Full-text screening, data abstraction and quality appraisal were conducted in duplicate. Included studies reported a primary diagnosis of RB/RP-ARM and compared LAARP versus open repair (OPEN). From 3681 retrieved articles, 7 studies enrolling 187 patients were analyzed. One was a randomized control trial, 6 were retrospective observational studies, and all were single-centre. The majority were of poor-moderate quality (MINORS scores: mean 16.42 (SD 2.225) out of 24). Mucosal prolapse was not significantly different after LAARP versus OPEN (p = 0.18). Defecation outcomes were inconsistently reported but were no different between LAARP and OPEN for either children >3 years old (p = 0.84), or all ages combined (p = 0.11). We found no significant difference in rates of mucosal prolapse or defecation scores for LAARP compared to OPEN for children with RB/RP-ARMs. However, studies are small and of poor-moderate quality and results are heterogeneous. Comprehensive, standardized, reliable reporting is necessary to guide practice and inform postoperative guidelines. 1c.
37 citations
TL;DR: Most of the interviewed SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making for critically ill and incapable loved ones, and Variability existed, however, in their desire to be involvement when decisions were time-sensitive or perceived risk was greater.
Abstract: Purpose
To examine the attitudes and preferences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) regarding their involvement in the consent to research process for ICU patients.
37 citations
TL;DR: This survey highlights perceptions and practices related to the determinants and consequences of airway humidification and suggests differences in the cost of mechanical ventilation between countries.
Abstract: Objective. To understand the national utilization pattern of heat and moisture exchangers (HME) and heated humidifiers (HH) in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.
37 citations
TL;DR: It is recommended that only preliminary diagnoses should be given in the following situations: for diagnostic areas with known high interobserver variability; when the consultant has any degree of uncertainty about the presence or absence of the lesion in question; and when there is insufficient experience using telepathology as a diagnostic medium.
Abstract: Accuracy of diagnoses rendered using a live video telepathology network was assessed for permanent sections of surgical pathology specimens. To determine accuracy, telepathology diagnoses were compared with those obtained by directly viewing the glass slide using a standard microscope. A total of
37 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