MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007798855 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004238

Reporting of Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Studies of Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3007798855 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise Rose, Meera Agar, Lisa Burry, Noll L. Campbell, Mike Clarke, Jacques Lee, John C. Marshall, Najma Siddiqi, Valérie Page

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionData extractionIntensive care medicineMEDLINEChecklistSystematic reviewClinical trialSedationPsychiatryInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated the scope and variability of outcomes, definitions, measures, and measurement time-points in published clinical trials of pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions, including quality improvement projects, to prevent and/or treat delirium in the critically ill. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories, and trial registries (1980 to March 2019). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We included randomized, quasi-randomized, and nonrandomized intervention studies of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. We extracted data on study characteristics, verbatim descriptions of study outcomes, and measurement characteristics. We assessed quality of outcome reporting using the Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate study scoring system; risk of bias and study quality using the Cochrane tool and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. We categorized reported outcomes using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 195 studies (1/195 pediatric) recruiting 74,632 participants and reporting a mean (SD) of 10 (6.2) outcome domains, we identified 12 delirium-specific outcome domains. Delirium incidence (147, 75% of studies), duration (67, 34%), and antipsychotic use (42, 22%) were most commonly reported. We identified a further 94 non-delirium-specific outcome domains within 19 Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy categories. For both delirium-specific and nonspecific outcome domains, we found multiple outcomes in domains due to differing descriptions and time-points. The Confusion Assessment Method-ICU with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to assess sedation was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium (51, 35%). Measurement generally began at randomization or ICU admission, and lasted from 1 to 30 days, ICU/hospital discharge. Frequency of measurement was highly variable with daily measurement and greater than daily measurement reported for 36% and 37% of studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantial heterogeneity and multiplicity of outcome selection and measurement in published studies. These data will inform the consensus building stage of a core outcome set to inform delirium research in the critically ill.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.693
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.693
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.239
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207