Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26836900›Full record

ArticleChest2016

Outcomes of Nurse Practitioner-Delivered Critical Care: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Janna S Landsperger, Matthew W Semler, Li Wang, Daniel W Byrne, Arthur P Wheeler

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Availability of Advanced Practice Providers in Adult Intensive Care Units in the United States: A Survey.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Janna S LandspergerDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: janna.landsperger@vanderbilt.edu.
Matthew W SemlerDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Li WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Daniel W ByrneDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Arthur P WheelerDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.

Funding

The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR)UL1TR000445 · NCATS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Clinical and Translational Training Program in Pulmonary MedicineT32HL087738 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Lorraine B Ware · 2007 to 2026
$7.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000445NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL087738
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) are increasingly being employed in ICUs to offset physician shortages, but no data exist about outcomes of critically ill patients continuously cared for by ACNPs.

methodsProspective cohort study of all admissions to an adult medical ICU in an academic, tertiary-care center between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. The primary end point of 90-day survival was compared between patients cared for by ACNP and resident teams using Cox proportional hazards regression. Secondary end points included ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay.

resultsAmong 9,066 admissions, there was no difference in 90-day survival for patients cared for by ACNP or resident teams (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P = .21). Although patients cared for by ACNPs had lower ICU mortality (6.3%) than resident team patients (11.6%; adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01), hospital mortality was not different (10.0% vs 15.9%; adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.03; P = .11). ICU length of stay was similar between the ACNP and resident teams (3.4 ± 3.5 days vs 3.7 ± 3.9 days [adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.1; P = .81]), but hospital length of stay was shorter for patients cared for by ACNPs (7.9 ± 11.2 days) than for resident patients (9.1 ± 11.2 days) (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P = .001).

conclusionOutcomes are comparable for critically ill patients cared for by ACNP and resident teams.

Indexed as

Critical CareMedical Staff, HospitalNurse PractitionersAcademic Medical CentersAdultAgedArabidopsis ProteinsCohort StudiesDelivery of Health CareDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA-Formamidopyrimidine GlycosylaseFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsArabidopsis ProteinsDNA-Binding ProteinsDNA-Formamidopyrimidine GlycosylaseMMH-1 protein, Arabidopsisacute care nurse practitionercritical carecritical care manpower standardsintensive care unitsnurse practitioneroutcome assessment (health care)patient care teamphysician assistantquality of health careretrospective studies

Identifiers

PMID26836900
PMCPMC4944779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.