Trial reportBMJ open2014
IMPOSE (IMProving Outcomes after Sepsis)-the effect of a multidisciplinary follow-up service on health-related quality of life in patients postsepsis syndromes-a double-blinded randomised controlled trial: protocol.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Follow-up services for improving long-term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Immunoglobulin G for patients with necrotising soft tissue infection (INSTINCT): a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2017Trial
- Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Exploration of Different Rehabilitation Routes for Sepsis Survivors with Monitoring of Health Status and Quality of Life: RehaSep Trial Protocol.Advances in therapy · 2019Observational
- Health related quality of life in sepsis survivors from the Prehospital Antibiotics Against Sepsis (PHANTASi) trial.PloS one · 2019Article
- Factors Underlying Racial Disparities in Sepsis Management.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Survivors of intensive care with type 2 diabetes and the effect of shared care follow-up clinics: study protocol for the SWEET-AS randomised controlled feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2016Article
- The Economic and Humanistic Burden of Severe Sepsis.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Review
- Ensuring Optimal Survival and Post-ICU Quality of Life in High-Risk ICU Patients: Permissive Underfeeding Is Not Safe!Critical care medicine · 2015Article
- Winning the war against ICU-acquired weakness: new innovations in nutrition and exercise physiology.Critical care (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients post sepsis syndromes have a poor quality of life and a high rate of recurring illness or mortality. Follow-up clinics have been instituted for patients postgeneral intensive care but evidence is sparse, and there has been no clinic specifically for survivors of sepsis. The aim of this trial is to investigate if targeted screening and appropriate intervention to these patients can result in an improved quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey (SF36V.2)), decreased mortality in the first 12 months, decreased readmission to hospital and/or decreased use of health resources. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 204 patients postsepsis syndromes will be randomised to one of the two groups. The intervention group will attend an outpatient clinic two monthly for 6 months and receive screening and targeted intervention. The usual care group will remain under the care of their physician. To analyse the results, a baseline comparison will be carried out between each group. Generalised estimating equations will compare the SF36 domain scores between groups and across time points. Mortality will be compared between groups using a Cox proportional hazards (time until death) analysis. Time to first readmission will be compared between groups by a survival analysis. Healthcare costs will be compared between groups using a generalised linear model. Economic (health resource) evaluation will be a within-trial incremental cost utility analysis with a societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC; HREC/13/QRBW/17), The University of Queensland HREC (2013000543), Griffith University (RHS/08/14/HREC) and the Australian Government Department of Health (26/2013). The results of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed intensive care journals and presented at national and international intensive care and/or rehabilitation conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000528752.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.