在重症监护试验中将无住院天数作为一项结果测量:一项系统评价。

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Ralph Shackleton, Sarah Vollam, Stephen Gerry, Akshay Shah, David M Griffith
{"title":"在重症监护试验中将无住院天数作为一项结果测量:一项系统评价。","authors":"Ralph Shackleton, Sarah Vollam, Stephen Gerry, Akshay Shah, David M Griffith","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesize the existing use, definitions, and variation in the application of hospital-free days (HFDs) as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Trial registries (ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov) and electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL PLUS).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included trial registrations, protocols, or articles reporting RCTs that included patients admitted to an adult ICU and had any variation of HFD as a primary or secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Data collected included definition of HFD, statistical analysis, minimal clinically important difference, method of data collection, and loss to follow-up. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the relevant domains of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting). Data were synthesized quantitatively using frequencies and percentages.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We identified 110 eligible studies. We found considerable variability in how HFD was defined and reported. Incomplete reporting was common, with 69 studies (62.7%) not reporting all three individual components of HFD. Length of stay was omitted most frequently. Risk of bias related to outcome assessment and measurement was considered low. Fifty-two studies (47.3%) collected HFD data from routine healthcare records. The most common follow-up time points were 28 and 90 days. Over half of all studies (56 [50.9%]) did not report the number of HFD counted if a patient died during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights the heterogeneity in the definition, reporting, and analysis of HFD. We propose guidance for the use of HFD and highlight areas for future research to allow standardization in the use and reporting of HFD in critical care research.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting of Hospital-Free Days As an Outcome Measure in Critical Care Trials: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Ralph Shackleton, Sarah Vollam, Stephen Gerry, Akshay Shah, David M Griffith\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To synthesize the existing use, definitions, and variation in the application of hospital-free days (HFDs) as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Trial registries (ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov) and electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL PLUS).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included trial registrations, protocols, or articles reporting RCTs that included patients admitted to an adult ICU and had any variation of HFD as a primary or secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Data collected included definition of HFD, statistical analysis, minimal clinically important difference, method of data collection, and loss to follow-up. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the relevant domains of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting). Data were synthesized quantitatively using frequencies and percentages.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We identified 110 eligible studies. We found considerable variability in how HFD was defined and reported. Incomplete reporting was common, with 69 studies (62.7%) not reporting all three individual components of HFD. Length of stay was omitted most frequently. Risk of bias related to outcome assessment and measurement was considered low. Fifty-two studies (47.3%) collected HFD data from routine healthcare records. The most common follow-up time points were 28 and 90 days. Over half of all studies (56 [50.9%]) did not report the number of HFD counted if a patient died during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights the heterogeneity in the definition, reporting, and analysis of HFD. We propose guidance for the use of HFD and highlight areas for future research to allow standardization in the use and reporting of HFD in critical care research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006858\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006858","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:综合危重成人随机对照试验(RCTs)中将无住院天数(HFDs)作为一项结局指标的现有使用、定义和应用变化。数据来源:试验注册库(ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov)和电子数据库(CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase和CINAHL PLUS)。研究选择:我们纳入了试验注册、方案或报道rct的文章,这些rct纳入了入住成人ICU的患者,HFD的任何变化作为主要或次要结局。资料提取:收集的资料包括HFD的定义、统计分析、最小临床重要差异、数据收集方法、随访损失。纳入研究的偏倚风险使用Cochrane风险偏倚2工具的相关领域进行评估(结果评估的盲法、不完整的结果数据和选择性报告)。使用频率和百分比对数据进行定量合成。数据综合:我们确定了110项符合条件的研究。我们发现HFD的定义和报告存在相当大的差异。报告不完整很常见,69项研究(62.7%)没有报告HFD的所有三个单独成分。停留时间最常被省略。与结果评估和测量相关的偏倚风险被认为是低的。52项研究(47.3%)从常规医疗记录中收集HFD数据。最常见的随访时间点为28天和90天。超过一半的研究(56项[50.9%])没有报告患者在随访期间死亡时计算的HFD数量。结论:本系统综述强调了HFD的定义、报告和分析的异质性。我们提出了HFD的使用指南,并强调了未来研究的重点领域,以便在重症监护研究中使用和报告HFD的标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reporting of Hospital-Free Days As an Outcome Measure in Critical Care Trials: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: To synthesize the existing use, definitions, and variation in the application of hospital-free days (HFDs) as an outcome measure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults.

Data sources: Trial registries (ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov) and electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL PLUS).

Study selection: We included trial registrations, protocols, or articles reporting RCTs that included patients admitted to an adult ICU and had any variation of HFD as a primary or secondary outcome.

Data extraction: Data collected included definition of HFD, statistical analysis, minimal clinically important difference, method of data collection, and loss to follow-up. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the relevant domains of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting). Data were synthesized quantitatively using frequencies and percentages.

Data synthesis: We identified 110 eligible studies. We found considerable variability in how HFD was defined and reported. Incomplete reporting was common, with 69 studies (62.7%) not reporting all three individual components of HFD. Length of stay was omitted most frequently. Risk of bias related to outcome assessment and measurement was considered low. Fifty-two studies (47.3%) collected HFD data from routine healthcare records. The most common follow-up time points were 28 and 90 days. Over half of all studies (56 [50.9%]) did not report the number of HFD counted if a patient died during follow-up.

Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the heterogeneity in the definition, reporting, and analysis of HFD. We propose guidance for the use of HFD and highlight areas for future research to allow standardization in the use and reporting of HFD in critical care research.

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
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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