Cargando…
Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a s...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896280/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 |
_version_ | 1784663128990023680 |
---|---|
author | Venkatesh, Karthik Henschke, Alice Lee, Richard P. Delaney, Anthony |
author_facet | Venkatesh, Karthik Henschke, Alice Lee, Richard P. Delaney, Anthony |
author_sort | Venkatesh, Karthik |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets. RESULTS: A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3–28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers. CONCLUSION: There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8896280 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88962802022-03-14 Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review Venkatesh, Karthik Henschke, Alice Lee, Richard P. Delaney, Anthony Trials Review BACKGROUND: Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets. RESULTS: A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3–28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers. CONCLUSION: There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting. BioMed Central 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8896280/ /pubmed/35246209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Venkatesh, Karthik Henschke, Alice Lee, Richard P. Delaney, Anthony Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title | Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title_full | Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title_short | Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
title_sort | patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896280/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT venkateshkarthik patientcentredoutcomesareunderreportedinthecriticalcareburnsliteratureasystematicreview AT henschkealice patientcentredoutcomesareunderreportedinthecriticalcareburnsliteratureasystematicreview AT leerichardp patientcentredoutcomesareunderreportedinthecriticalcareburnsliteratureasystematicreview AT delaneyanthony patientcentredoutcomesareunderreportedinthecriticalcareburnsliteratureasystematicreview |