Project description:BackgroundAs many as 90% of patients develop anemia by their third day in an intensive care unit (ICU). We evaluated the efficacy of interventions to reduce phlebotomy-related blood loss on the volume of blood lost, hemoglobin levels, transfusions, and incidence of anemia.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) systematic review methods for rating study quality and assessing the body of evidence. Searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsychINFO, and CINAHL identified 2564 published references. We included studies of the impact of interventions to reduce phlebotomy-related blood loss on blood loss, hemoglobin levels, transfusions, or anemia among hospital inpatients. We excluded studies not published in English and studies that did not have a comparison group, did not report an outcome of interest, or were rated as poor quality. Twenty-one studies met these criteria. We conducted a meta-analysis if > 2 homogenous studies reported sufficient information for analysis.ResultsWe found moderate, consistent evidence that devices that return blood from flushing venous or arterial lines to the patient reduced blood loss by approximately 25% in both neonatal ICU (NICU) and adult ICU patients [pooled estimate in adults, 24.7 (95% CI = 12.1-37.3)]. Bundled interventions that included blood conservation devices appeared to reduce blood loss by at least 25% (suggestive evidence). The evidence was insufficient to determine if these devices reduced hemoglobin decline or risk of anemia. The evidence suggested that small volume tubes reduced the risk of anemia, but was insufficient to determine if they affected the volume of blood loss or the rate of hemoglobin decline.ConclusionsModerate, consistent evidence indicated that devices that return blood from testing or flushing lines to the patient reduce the volume of blood loss by approximately 25% among ICU patients. The results of this systematic review support the use of blood conservation systems with arterial or venous catheters to eliminate blood waste when drawing blood for testing. The evidence was insufficient to conclude the devices impacted hemoglobin levels or transfusion rates. The use of small volume tubes may reduce the risk of anemia.

Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Dataset Information

The Effect of Laboratory Test-Based Clinical Decision Support Tools on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Effect of Laboratory Test-Based Clinical Decision Support Tools on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets