MacLaren, Robert

BACKGROUND. Survey research in critical care has dramatically increased over the past 25 years, and use of surveys within Delphi methods, which provide consensus definitions for heterogeneous disease states, has similarly expanded significantly. It is crucial for survey researchers to understand the nuances of survey development and expectations of information provided by surveys, to use them correctly. Few simple sources exist to guide development considerations to generate high-quality survey research. No studies to our knowledge exist that draw parallels between the principles of survey research as a guide within the Delphi process, as one potential conduit between a steering committee and expert panel. METHODS. We present a narrative review of and framework for rigorous design of survey research, highlighting the applicability to the design of surveys administered within Delphi methods. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. The methodologic considerations presented for survey research and Delphi methods can inform high-quality critical care research.

OBJECTIVES: To develop the first core Critical Care Data Dictionary (C2D2) with common data elements (CDEs) to characterize critical illness and injuries. DESIGN: Group consensus process using modified Delphi approach. SETTING: Electronic surveys and in-person meetings. SUBJECTS: A multidisciplinary workgroup of clinicians and researchers with expertise in the care of the critically ill and injured. INTERVENTIONS: The Delphi process was divided into domain and CDE portions with each composed of two item generation rounds and one item reduction/refinement rounds. Two in-person meetings augmented this process to facilitate review and consideration of the domains and by panel members. The final set of domains and CDEs was then reviewed by the group to meet the competing criteria of utility and feasibility, resulting in the core dataset. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 23-member Delphi panel was provided 1833 candidate variables for potential dataset inclusion. The final dataset includes 226 patient-level CDCs in nine domains, which include anthropometrics and demographics (8), chronic comorbid illnesses (18), advanced directives (1), ICU diagnoses (61), diagnostic tests (42), interventions (27), medications (38), objective assessments (26), and hospital course and outcomes (5). Upon final review, 91% of the panel endorsed the CDCs as meeting criteria for a minimum viable data dictionary. Data elements cross the lifespan of neonate through adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting C2D2 provides a foundation to facilitate rapid collection, analyses, and dissemination of information necessary for research, quality improvement, and clinical practice to optimize critical care outcomes. Further work is needed to validate the effectiveness of the dataset in a variety of critical care settings.

Goals: The aim was to systematically evaluate risks and benefits of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use for stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill patient. Background: Whether PPIs increase mortality in the critically ill patient remains controversial. Study: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with trial sequential analysis, Bayesian sensitivity analysis, and fragility index analysis. Results: A total of 31 studies in 78,009 critically ill adults receiving PPIs versus any comparator were included. PPI use was associated with an increased mortality risk in all studies [19.6% PPI vs. 17.5% comparator; RR: 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.20; P =0.01], in the subgroup of RCTs (19.4% vs. 18.7%; RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.0-1.09, P =0.04), but not cohort studies (19.9% vs. 16.7%; RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.98-1.28, P =0.09). Results were maintained with a Bayesian sensitivity analysis (RR: 1.13; 95% credible interval: 1.035-1.227) and a fragility index analysis, but not sequential analysis ( P =0.16). RCTs with a higher baseline severity of illness revealed the greatest mortality risk with PPI use (32.1% PPI vs. 29.4% comparator; RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04-1.14; P <0.001). PPI use reduced clinically important bleeding in RCTs (1.4% PPI vs. 2.1% comparator; RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.5-0.9; P =0.009) but increased bleeding in cohort studies (2.7% PPI vs. 1.2% comparator; RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.2-3.52; P =0.009). PPI use was not associated with a lower incidence of clinically important bleeding when compared with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (1.3% vs. 1.9%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.28-1.25, P =0.09). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between PPI use and an increased risk of mortality.