Worldwide Opinion on Multicenter Randomized Interventions Showing Mortality Reduction in Critically Ill Patients: A Democracy-Based Medicine Approach

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F16%3A10334776" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/16:10334776 - isvavai.cz</a>

Alternative codes found

RIV/00216208:11110/16:10334776

Result on the web

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.005" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.005</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.005" target="_blank" >10.1053/j.jvca.2016.05.005</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Worldwide Opinion on Multicenter Randomized Interventions Showing Mortality Reduction in Critically Ill Patients: A Democracy-Based Medicine Approach

Original language description

Objectives: Democracy-based medicine is a combination of evidence-based medicine (systematic review), expert assessment, and worldwide voting by physicians to express their opinions and self-reported practice via the Internet. The authors applied democracy-based medicine to key trials in critical care medicine. Design and Setting: A systematic review of literature followed by web-based voting on findings of a consensus conference. Participants: A total of 555 clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions: The authors performed a systematic literature review (via searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) and selected all multicenter randomized clinical trials in critical care that reported a significant effect on survival and were endorsed by expert clinicians. Then they solicited voting and self-reported practice on such evidence via an interactive Internet questionnaire. Relationships among trial sample size, design, and respondents' agreement were investigated. The gap between agreement and use/avoidance and the influence of country origin on physicians' approach to interventions also were investigated. Measurements and Main Results: According to 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials, 15 interventions affecting mortality were identified. Wide variabilities in both the level of agreement and reported practice among different interventions and countries were found. Moreover, agreement and reported practice often did not coincide. Finally, a positive correlation among agreement, trial sample size, and number of included centers was found. On the contrary, trial design did not influence clinicians' agreement. Conclusions: Physicians' clinical practice and agreement with the literature vary among different interventions and countries. The role of these interventions in affecting survival should be further investigated to reduce both the gap between evidence and clinical practice and transnational differences. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_x - Unclassified - Peer-reviewed scientific article (Jimp, Jsc and Jost)

CEP classification

FP - Other medical fields

OECD FORD branch

—

Project

—

Continuities

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Publication year

2016

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

ISSN

1053-0770

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

30

Issue of the periodical within the volume

5

Country of publishing house

US - UNITED STATES

Number of pages

10

Pages from-to

1386-1395

UT code for WoS article

000384157300039

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-84991098085