神经重症监护试验中的功能结果评估方法:系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Emily Fitzgerald, Lachlan Donaldson, Naomi Hammond, Breannan Johnson, Kwan Yee Leung, Rachel McBain, Gabrielle McDonald, Kirsten Rowcliff, Ruan Vlok, Anthony Delaney
{"title":"神经重症监护试验中的功能结果评估方法:系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Emily Fitzgerald, Lachlan Donaldson, Naomi Hammond, Breannan Johnson, Kwan Yee Leung, Rachel McBain, Gabrielle McDonald, Kirsten Rowcliff, Ruan Vlok, Anthony Delaney","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute brain injury due to conditions such as subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury are associated with physical, psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social deficits. Despite reductions in morbidity and mortality, there have been few significant changes in clinical practice. It has been suggested that heterogeneity in outcome assessment in studies has contributed to this limited progress.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to describe current methods of outcome assessment in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury studies and to examine the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies enrolling an adult aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury population and reporting at least one functional outcome measure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 176 studies, including 60 494 participants. The Glasgow Outcome Scale or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended was used in 68% (N = 120) of studies and the Modified Rankin Scale in 38% (N = 67) of studies. Outcome assessment was reported at different timepoints, using different methods of application, and often dichotomised using different ranges. Many studies did not report key details on methods of outcome assessment. Outcome assessment using the Modified Rankin Scale was associated with a higher proportion of patients reported as having a favourable outcome 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.67) than the Glasgow Outcome Scale 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53) or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended 0.42 (95% CI: 0.37-0.48, p < 0.01). In-person assessment was associated with an increased proportion of patients achieving a favourable outcome 0.55 (95% CI: 0.55-0.45) compared to telephone assessment 0.46 (95% CI: 0.40-0.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is significant heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of methods of outcome assessment in critical care studies enrolling aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury patient populations. Our study identified an association between the methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes. Our study supports initiatives to standardise outcome assessment in neurocritical care research to ensure the quality of outcome data.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023072206).</p>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"101124"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods of functional outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Fitzgerald, Lachlan Donaldson, Naomi Hammond, Breannan Johnson, Kwan Yee Leung, Rachel McBain, Gabrielle McDonald, Kirsten Rowcliff, Ruan Vlok, Anthony Delaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute brain injury due to conditions such as subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury are associated with physical, psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social deficits. Despite reductions in morbidity and mortality, there have been few significant changes in clinical practice. It has been suggested that heterogeneity in outcome assessment in studies has contributed to this limited progress.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to describe current methods of outcome assessment in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury studies and to examine the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies enrolling an adult aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury population and reporting at least one functional outcome measure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 176 studies, including 60 494 participants. The Glasgow Outcome Scale or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended was used in 68% (N = 120) of studies and the Modified Rankin Scale in 38% (N = 67) of studies. Outcome assessment was reported at different timepoints, using different methods of application, and often dichotomised using different ranges. Many studies did not report key details on methods of outcome assessment. Outcome assessment using the Modified Rankin Scale was associated with a higher proportion of patients reported as having a favourable outcome 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.67) than the Glasgow Outcome Scale 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53) or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended 0.42 (95% CI: 0.37-0.48, p < 0.01). In-person assessment was associated with an increased proportion of patients achieving a favourable outcome 0.55 (95% CI: 0.55-0.45) compared to telephone assessment 0.46 (95% CI: 0.40-0.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is significant heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of methods of outcome assessment in critical care studies enrolling aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury patient populations. Our study identified an association between the methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes. Our study supports initiatives to standardise outcome assessment in neurocritical care research to ensure the quality of outcome data.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023072206).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2024.09.009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:蛛网膜下腔出血和创伤性脑损伤等情况导致的急性脑损伤与生理、心理、认知、情感和社交障碍有关。尽管发病率和死亡率有所下降,但临床实践中却鲜有重大改变。有人认为,研究结果评估的异质性是导致进展有限的原因之一:本研究旨在描述动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血和创伤性脑损伤研究中目前的结果评估方法,并探讨结果评估方法与报告结果之间的关系:我们对纳入成人动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血或创伤性脑损伤人群并报告至少一项功能性结果测量的随机对照试验和队列研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析:我们确定了 176 项研究,包括 60 494 名参与者。68%的研究(N = 120)使用了格拉斯哥结果量表或格拉斯哥结果量表扩展版,38%的研究(N = 67)使用了改良朗肯量表。结果评估在不同的时间点报告,采用不同的应用方法,并经常使用不同的范围进行二分法。许多研究没有报告结果评估方法的关键细节。与格拉斯哥结果量表 0.48(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.43-0.53)或扩展格拉斯哥结果量表 0.42(95% 置信区间:0.37-0.48,P)相比,使用改良朗肯量表进行结果评估与较高比例的患者报告为良好结果相关(0.62(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.58-0.67)):在动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血和创伤性脑损伤患者群体的重症监护研究中,结果评估方法存在明显的异质性和不完整报告。我们的研究确定了结果评估方法与报告结果之间的关联。我们的研究支持神经重症监护研究中结果评估标准化的倡议,以确保结果数据的质量:注册:系统综述国际前瞻性注册(CRD42023072206)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods of functional outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Acute brain injury due to conditions such as subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury are associated with physical, psychological, cognitive, emotional, and social deficits. Despite reductions in morbidity and mortality, there have been few significant changes in clinical practice. It has been suggested that heterogeneity in outcome assessment in studies has contributed to this limited progress.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe current methods of outcome assessment in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury studies and to examine the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies enrolling an adult aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury population and reporting at least one functional outcome measure.

Results: We identified 176 studies, including 60 494 participants. The Glasgow Outcome Scale or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended was used in 68% (N = 120) of studies and the Modified Rankin Scale in 38% (N = 67) of studies. Outcome assessment was reported at different timepoints, using different methods of application, and often dichotomised using different ranges. Many studies did not report key details on methods of outcome assessment. Outcome assessment using the Modified Rankin Scale was associated with a higher proportion of patients reported as having a favourable outcome 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.67) than the Glasgow Outcome Scale 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53) or the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended 0.42 (95% CI: 0.37-0.48, p < 0.01). In-person assessment was associated with an increased proportion of patients achieving a favourable outcome 0.55 (95% CI: 0.55-0.45) compared to telephone assessment 0.46 (95% CI: 0.40-0.52).

Conclusion: There is significant heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of methods of outcome assessment in critical care studies enrolling aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and traumatic brain injury patient populations. Our study identified an association between the methods of outcome assessment and reported outcomes. Our study supports initiatives to standardise outcome assessment in neurocritical care research to ensure the quality of outcome data.

Registration: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023072206).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信