About this item:

80 Views | 46 Downloads

Author Notes:

kimberley.haines@wh.org.au

We thank Kaitryn Campbell, MLIS, AHIP (St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON) for peer review of the PubMed search strategy. We would like to thank Lynn Higgins and Western Health Library Services for their contribution in sourcing full-text articles for this review.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

Drs. Haines’, McPeake’s, Ferrante’s, and Sevin’s institutions received funding from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). Drs. Haines from a Thrive grant from SCCM, and Drs. McPeake and Sevin received funding from SCCM. Dr. McPeake’s institution received funding from THIS Institute (University of Cambridge). Drs. Anderson’s and Ferrante’s institutions received funding from National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr. Anderson’s institution received funding from the American Thoracic Society Foundation. Drs. Anderson, Brummel, Ferrante, Jackson, Needham, and Harhay received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Brummel’s institution received funding from the NIH, and he received funding from Merck. Drs. Hough and Skidmore disclosed work for hire. Dr. Ferrante is supported by a Beeson award from the National Institute on Aging (K76 057023). Dr. Needham’s institution received funding from NIH (R01HL132887) evaluating nutrition and exercise in acute respiratory failure. For purposes of this multisite trial, Baxter Healthcare Corporation has provided an unrestricted research grant and donated amino acid product. Also, two study sites (not his University/site) have received an equipment loan from Reck Medical Devices. Dr. Collins was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and Cancer Research UK (program grant: C49297/A27294). Dr. Harhay’s institution received funding from NIH/NHLBI grants K99HL141678 and R00HL141678. BJA was supported by K23HL140482 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Critical Care Medicine
  • General & Internal Medicine
  • critical care
  • postintensive care syndrome
  • prediction
  • INDIVIDUAL PROGNOSIS
  • CARE
  • RISK
  • BIAS
  • APPLICABILITY
  • SURVIVORSHIP
  • EXPLANATION
  • PERFORMANCE
  • CALIBRATION
  • MORTALITY

Prediction Models for Physical, Cognitive, and Mental Health Impairments After Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Show all authors Show less authors

Tools:

Journal Title:

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Volume:

Volume 48, Number 12

Publisher:

, Pages 1871-1880

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Improved ability to predict impairments after critical illness could guide clinical decision-making, inform trial enrollment, and facilitate comprehensive patient recovery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to investigate whether physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments could be predicted in adult survivors of critical illness. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018117255) was undertaken on December 8, 2018, and the final searches updated on January 20, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Four independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against study eligibility criteria. Studies were eligible if a prediction model was developed, validated, or updated for impairments after critical illness in adult patients. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or an independent adjudicator. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study characteristics, timing of outcome measurement, candidate predictors, and analytic strategies used were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 8,549 screened studies, three studies met inclusion. All three studies focused on the development of a prediction model to predict (1) a mental health composite outcome at 3 months post discharge, (2) return-to-pre-ICU functioning and residence at 6 months post discharge, and (3) physical function 2 months post discharge. Only one model had been externally validated. All studies had a high risk of bias, primarily due to the sample size, and statistical methods used to develop and select the predictors for the prediction published model. CONCLUSIONS: We only found three studies that developed a prediction model of any post-ICU impairment. There are several opportunities for improvement for future prediction model development, including the use of standardized outcomes and time horizons, and improved study design and statistical methodology.

Copyright information:

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/rdf).
Export to EndNote