Citations

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.

ABSTRACT The American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) first described the role and history of the pharmacist as principal investigator (PI) in 2000. An update was published in 2010, citing evidence from NIH and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry that showed an increase in the number of individuals with a Pharm.D. degree engaging in pharmacist‐directed research. The 2025 ACCP Publications Committee was charged with providing an update to the 2010 paper. Key findings include a substantial increase in the total amount of federal funding awarded to schools of pharmacy (SoP) between 2011 and 2023, a modest increase in the number of pharmacists receiving federal grants when comparing 2010 with 2024, and evidence of pharmacist leadership and engagement in Clinical and Translational Science Award networks and service on national grant review panels. It remains challenging, however, to ascertain accurate and reliable data on pharmacists serving in PI roles because of the limitations of currently available data sources. This is especially true for pharmacist PIs who receive non‐federal funding. Future opportunities include a continued emphasis on training programs to prepare pharmacists for PI roles, greater institutional support (e.g., research infrastructure, mentoring programs) for pharmacists serving in PI roles, better promotion of research career tracks to Pharm.D. students and trainees, enhanced efforts at SoP to pursue institutional training grants, and more collaborative efforts across professional organizations to advocate for pharmacist‐scientists. An urgent call to action is necessary to ensure the future growth and success of pharmacist‐directed 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.

Cellular therapies, such as stem cell–based treatments, have been widely researched and numerous products and treatments have been developed. Despite this, there has been relatively limited use of these technologies in the healthcare sector. This study sought to investigate the perceived barriers to this more widespread adoption. An anonymous online questionnaire was developed, based on the findings of a pilot study. This was distributed to an audience of clinicians, researchers and commercial experts in 13 countries. The results were analysed for all respondents, and also sub-grouped by geographical region, and by profession of respondents. The results of the study showed that the most significant barrier was manufacturing, with other factors such as efficacy, regulation and cost-effectiveness being identified by the different groups. This study further demonstrates the need for these important issues to be addressed during the development of cellular therapies to enable more widespread adoption of these treatments.

There has been a large increase in basic science activity in cell therapy and a growing portfolio of cell therapy trials. However, the number of industry products available for widespread clinical use does not match this magnitude of activity. We hypothesize that the paucity of engagement with the clinical community is a key contributor to the lack of commercially successful cell therapy products. To investigate this, we launched a pilot study to survey clinicians from five specialities and to determine what they believe to be the most significant barriers to cellular therapy clinical development and adoption. Our study shows that the main concerns among this group are cost-effectiveness, efficacy, reimbursement, and regulation. Addressing these concerns can best be achieved by ensuring that future clinical trials are conducted to adequately answer the questions of both regulators and the broader clinical community.