Dataset Information

Postdischarge Outcome Domains in Pediatric Critical Care and the Instruments Used to Evaluate Them: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Assessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes.

Design

Scoping review.

Setting

We queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family).

Subjects

Manuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Of 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments).

Conclusions

A comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.

SUBMITTER: Maddux AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7708523 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDialog agents (chatbots) have a long history of application in health care, where they have been used for tasks such as supporting patient self-management and providing counseling. Their use is expected to grow with increasing demands on health systems and improving artificial intelligence (AI) capability. Approaches to the evaluation of health care chatbots, however, appear to be diverse and haphazard, resulting in a potential barrier to the advancement of the field.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the technical (nonclinical) metrics used by previous studies to evaluate health care chatbots.MethodsStudies were identified by searching 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) in addition to conducting backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. The studies were independently selected by two reviewers who then extracted data from the included studies. Extracted data were synthesized narratively by grouping the identified metrics into categories based on the aspect of chatbots that the metrics evaluated.ResultsOf the 1498 citations retrieved, 65 studies were included in this review. Chatbots were evaluated using 27 technical metrics, which were related to chatbots as a whole (eg, usability, classifier performance, speed), response generation (eg, comprehensibility, realism, repetitiveness), response understanding (eg, chatbot understanding as assessed by users, word error rate, concept error rate), and esthetics (eg, appearance of the virtual agent, background color, and content).ConclusionsThe technical metrics of health chatbot studies were diverse, with survey designs and global usability metrics dominating. The lack of standardization and paucity of objective measures make it difficult to compare the performance of health chatbots and could inhibit advancement of the field. We suggest that researchers more frequently include metrics computed from conversation logs. In addition, we recommend the development of a framework of technical metrics with recommendations for specific circumstances for their inclusion in chatbot studies.

Project description:ObjectivesMore children are surviving critical illness but are at risk of residual or new health conditions. An evidence-informed and stakeholder-recommended core outcome set is lacking for pediatric critical care outcomes. Our objective was to create a multinational, multistakeholder-recommended pediatric critical care core outcome set for inclusion in clinical and research programs.DesignA two-round modified Delphi electronic survey was conducted with 333 invited research, clinical, and family/advocate stakeholders. Stakeholders completing the first round were invited to participate in the second. Outcomes scoring greater than 69% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" advanced to round 2 with write-in outcomes considered. The Steering Committee held a virtual consensus conference to determine the final components.SettingMultinational survey.PatientsStakeholder participants from six continents representing clinicians, researchers, and family/advocates.Measurements and main resultsOverall response rates were 75% and 82% for each round. Participants voted on seven Global Domains and 45 Specific Outcomes in round 1, and six Global Domains and 30 Specific Outcomes in round 2. Using overall (three stakeholder groups combined) results, consensus was defined as outcomes scoring greater than 90% "critical" and less than 15% "not important" and were included in the final PICU core outcome set: four Global Domains (Cognitive, Emotional, Physical, and Overall Health) and four Specific Outcomes (Child Health-Related Quality of Life, Pain, Survival, and Communication). Families (n = 21) suggested additional critically important outcomes that did not meet consensus, which were included in the PICU core outcome set-extended.ConclusionsThe PICU core outcome set and PICU core outcome set-extended are multistakeholder-recommended resources for clinical and research programs that seek to improve outcomes for children with critical illness and their families.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required to guide treatment of critically ill children, but the number of RCTs available is limited and the publications are often difficult to find. The objectives of this review were to systematically identify RCTs in pediatric critical care and describe their methods and reporting.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL (from inception to April 16, 2013) and reference lists of included RCTs and relevant systematic reviews. We included published RCTs administering any intervention to children in a pediatric ICU. We excluded trials conducted in neonatal ICUs, those enrolling exclusively preterm infants, and individual patient crossover trials. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe included 248 RCTs: 45 (18%) were multicentered and 14 (6%) were multinational. Trials most frequently enrolled both medical and surgical patients (43%) but postoperative cardiac surgery was the single largest population studied (19%). The most frequently evaluated types of intervention were medications (63%), devices (11%) and nutrition (8%). Laboratory or physiological measurements were the most frequent type of primary outcomes (18%). Half of these trials (50%) reported blinding. Of the 107 (43%) trials that reported an a priori sample size, 34 (32%) were stopped early. The median number of children randomized per trial was 49 and ranged from 6 to 4,947. The frequency of RCT publications increased at a mean rate of 0.7 RCTs per year (P<0.001) from 1 to 20 trials per year.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified the available RCTs in pediatric critical care and made them accessible to clinicians and researchers (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca). Most focused on medications and intermediate or surrogate outcomes, were single-centered and were conducted in North America and Western Europe. The results of this review underscore the need for trials with rigorous methodology, appropriate outcome measures, and improved quality of reporting to ensure that high quality evidence exists to support clinical decision-making in this vulnerable population.

Project description:There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded.Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used.Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments.The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525 . Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.

Project description:BackgroundThe choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects in early phase trials (which informed the design of the subsequent Phase III trials) are not valid guides to the differences between the interventions for the main outcomes of the Phase III trials. We undertook a systematic review (1) to generate a list of outcome measures used in critical care trials, (2) to determine the variability in the outcome reporting in the respiratory subgroup and (3) to create a smaller list of potential early phase endpoints in the respiratory subgroup.MethodsData related to outcomes were extracted from studies published in the six top-ranked critical care journals between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes were classified into subcategories and categories. A subset of early phase endpoints relevant to the respiratory subgroup was selected for further investigation. The variability of the outcomes and the variability in reporting was investigated.ResultsA total of 6905 references were retrieved and a total of 294 separate outcomes were identified from 58 studies. The outcomes were then classified into 11 categories and 66 subcategories. A subset of 22 outcomes relevant for the respiratory group were identified as potential early phase outcomes. The summary statistics, time points and definitions show the outcomes are analysed and reported in different ways.ConclusionThe outcome measures were defined, analysed and reported in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for synthesising data in systematic reviews and planning definitive trials. This review once again highlights an urgent need for standardisation and validation of surrogate outcomes reported in critical care trials. Future work should aim to validate and develop a core outcome set for surrogate outcomes in critical care trials.