Top 10 research priorities for sepsis research determined by patients, carers and clinicians

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-06-05 DOI:10.1111/anae.16634
Joanne McPeake, Nahid Ahmad, Kimberley Bradley, Andrew Conway Morris, Paul Dark, Colin Graham, Walter Hall, Susan Moug, Mark Oakes, Emily Perry, Simon Stockley, Jane Weaver, Bronwen Connolly, Nazir Lone
{"title":"Top 10 research priorities for sepsis research determined by patients, carers and clinicians","authors":"Joanne McPeake, Nahid Ahmad, Kimberley Bradley, Andrew Conway Morris, Paul Dark, Colin Graham, Walter Hall, Susan Moug, Mark Oakes, Emily Perry, Simon Stockley, Jane Weaver, Bronwen Connolly, Nazir Lone","doi":"10.1111/anae.16634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SummaryIntroductionSepsis is a high burden syndrome associated with increased morbidity and mortality in both the acute and longer‐term phases of illness. Multiple treatment uncertainties remain that require resolution through high‐quality research. This study aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for sepsis research in the UK.MethodsWe conducted a priority setting partnership study co‐produced by sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. This included five stages: initiation of steering group formation and confirmation of the scope of the priority setting partnership; identification of clinical uncertainties through an electronic survey; analysis and verification of uncertainties; interim prioritisation to the top 25 ranked questions; and final prioritisation to determine the top 10 research priorities, using the nominal group technique.ResultsOur initial survey respondents comprised 447/718 (62.3%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 218/718 (30.4%) clinicians; and 53/718 (7.1%) multiple/other roles who identified 53 distinct research uncertainties. Our interim prioritisation survey comprised 429/941 (45.8%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 431/941 (46.0%) clinicians; and 73/941 (8.2%) multiple/other roles, with the top 25 ranked summary questions taken forwards for final prioritisation. From these, final workshop participants (n = 27) agreed a top 10 list of research priorities. Improved sepsis diagnosis; characterisation and management of the post‐sepsis syndrome; and non‐antibiotic treatment of sepsis were the top three priorities.DiscussionWe establised priorities for sepsis research through a rigorous process of consensus involving sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. These priorities will support future delivery of meaningful research to improve outcomes from sepsis.","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16634","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

SummaryIntroductionSepsis is a high burden syndrome associated with increased morbidity and mortality in both the acute and longer‐term phases of illness. Multiple treatment uncertainties remain that require resolution through high‐quality research. This study aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for sepsis research in the UK.MethodsWe conducted a priority setting partnership study co‐produced by sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. This included five stages: initiation of steering group formation and confirmation of the scope of the priority setting partnership; identification of clinical uncertainties through an electronic survey; analysis and verification of uncertainties; interim prioritisation to the top 25 ranked questions; and final prioritisation to determine the top 10 research priorities, using the nominal group technique.ResultsOur initial survey respondents comprised 447/718 (62.3%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 218/718 (30.4%) clinicians; and 53/718 (7.1%) multiple/other roles who identified 53 distinct research uncertainties. Our interim prioritisation survey comprised 429/941 (45.8%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 431/941 (46.0%) clinicians; and 73/941 (8.2%) multiple/other roles, with the top 25 ranked summary questions taken forwards for final prioritisation. From these, final workshop participants (n = 27) agreed a top 10 list of research priorities. Improved sepsis diagnosis; characterisation and management of the post‐sepsis syndrome; and non‐antibiotic treatment of sepsis were the top three priorities.DiscussionWe establised priorities for sepsis research through a rigorous process of consensus involving sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. These priorities will support future delivery of meaningful research to improve outcomes from sepsis.
由患者、护理人员和临床医生确定的败血症研究的十大研究重点
脓毒症是一种高负担综合征,在疾病的急性期和长期期都与发病率和死亡率增加有关。多种治疗的不确定性仍然需要通过高质量的研究来解决。本研究旨在确定英国败血症研究的十大研究重点。方法:我们进行了一项由脓毒症幸存者、护理人员和临床医生共同进行的优先级设定伙伴关系研究。这包括五个阶段:开始组建指导小组和确认确定优先次序伙伴关系的范围;通过电子调查识别临床不确定性;不确定度的分析与验证;对排名前25位的问题进行临时优先排序;最后确定十大研究重点,使用名义分组技术。我们的初步调查对象包括447/718例(62.3%)败血症幸存者及其朋友和家人;218/718(30.4%)临床医生;53/718(7.1%)的多重/其他角色确定了53个不同的研究不确定性。我们的中期优先级调查包括429/941(45.8%)败血症幸存者、他们的朋友和家人;431/941(46.0%)临床医生;73/941(8.2%)是多重/其他角色,排名前25位的总结问题将被优先考虑。最终,研讨会参与者(n = 27)同意了十大研究重点。改善败血症诊断;脓毒症后综合征的特征和治疗脓毒症的非抗生素治疗是前三个优先事项。我们通过涉及脓毒症幸存者、护理人员和临床医生的严格共识过程,确定了脓毒症研究的优先级。这些优先事项将支持未来开展有意义的研究,以改善败血症的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信