Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review

106Citations
Citations of this article
140Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Intensivists’ clinical decision making pursues two main goals for patients: to decrease mortality and to improve quality of life and functional status in survivors. Patient-important outcomes are gaining wide acceptance in most fields of clinical research. We sought to systematically review how well patient-important outcomes are reported in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critically ill patients. Methods: Literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials indexed from January to December 2013. Articles were eligible if they reported an RCT involving critically ill adult patients. We excluded phase II, pilot and physiological crossover studies. We assessed study characteristics. All primary and secondary outcomes were collected, described and classified using six categories of outcomes including patient-important outcomes (involving mortality at any time on the one hand and quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes assessed after ICU discharge on the other). Results: Of the 716 articles retrieved in 2013, 112 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Most common topics were mechanical ventilation (27%), sepsis (19%) and nutrition (17%). Among the 112 primary outcomes, 27 (24%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 21/27) but only six (5%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (functional disability = 4; quality of life = 2). Among the 598 secondary outcomes, 133 (22%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 92/133) but only 41 (7%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (quality of life = 20, functional disability = 14; neurological/cognitive performance = 5; handicap = 1; post-traumatic stress = 1). Seventy-three RCTs (65%) reported at least one patient-important outcome but only 11 (10%) reported at least one patient-important outcome besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge. Conclusion: Patient-important outcomes are rarely primary outcomes in RCTs in critically ill patients published in 2013. Among them, mortality accounted for the majority. We promote the use of patient-important outcomes in critical care trials.

References Powered by Scopus

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

17972Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

17477Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome

11088Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Non-invasive ventilation versus high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy with apnoeic oxygenation for preoxygenation before intubation of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, multicentre, open-label trial

134Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Understanding and enhancing sepsis survivorship priorities for research and practice

99Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Functional Recovery in Critically Ill Children, the "weeCover" Multicenter Study

89Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gaudry, S., Messika, J., Ricard, J. D., Guillo, S., Pasquet, B., Dubief, E., … Tubach, F. (2017, December 1). Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Annals of Intensive Care. Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-017-0243-z

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 47

60%

Researcher 16

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 53

64%

Nursing and Health Professions 17

20%

Psychology 7

8%

Social Sciences 6

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 28

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free