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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/16:10334776

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FP - Ostatní lékařské obory

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

ISSN

1053-0770

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

30

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

1386-1395

Kód UT WoS článku

000384157300039

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-84991098085