Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26951427›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2016

CAESAR: a new tool to assess relatives' experience of dying and death in the ICU.

Nancy Kentish-Barnes, Valérie Seegers, Stéphane Legriel, Alain Cariou, Samir Jaber, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Bernard Floccard, Anne Renault, Isabelle Vinatier, Armelle Mathonnet and 28 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Communication with bereaved family members after death in the ICU: the CATHARTIC randomised clinical trial.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

38 authors.

Nancy Kentish-BarnesAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Famiréa Research Group, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France.
Valérie SeegersParis-Sud Innovation Group in Mental Health, UMR 669, INSERM, Paris-Sud University, Paris, France.
Stéphane LegrielVersailles Hospital, Versailles, France.
Alain CariouAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Cochin University Hospital, Paris, France.
Samir JaberSaint Eloi University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Jean-Yves LefrantCarémeau University Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Bernard FloccardHospices Civils de Lyon, Edouard Herriot University Hospital, Lyon, France.
Anne RenaultCavale Blanche University Hospital, Brest, France.
Isabelle VinatierLes Oudairies Hospital, La Roche Sur Yon, France.
Armelle MathonnetHospital de la Source, Orléans, France.
Danielle ReuterAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Famiréa Research Group, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France.
Olivier GuissetSaint André University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Christophe CraccoAngoulême Hospital, Angoulême, France.
Amélie SeguinCaen University Hospital, Caen, France.
Jacques Durand-GasselinSainte Musse Hospital, Toulon, France.
Béatrice ÉonLa Timone University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Marina ThirionVictor Dupouy Hospital, Argenteuil, France.
Jean-Philippe RigaudDieppe Hospital, Dieppe, France.
Bénédicte Philippon-JouveRoanne Hospital, Roanne, France.
Laurent ArgaudHospices Civils de Lyon, Edouard Herriot University Hospital, Lyon, France.
Renaud ChouquerAnnecy Hospital, Annecy, France.
Mélanie AddaHôpital Nord University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Laurent PapazianHôpital Nord University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Céline DedrieRoubaix Hospital, Roubaix, France.
Hugues GeorgesChatilliez Hospital, Tourcoing, France.
Eddy LebasBretagne Atlantique Hospital, Vannes, France.
Nathalie RolinMarc Jacquet Hospital, Melun, France.
Pierre-Edouard BollaertNancy University Hospital, Nancy, France.
Lucien LecuyerSud Francilien Hospital, Evry, France.
Gérald ViquesnelCaen University Hospital, Caen, France.
Marc LéoneHôpital Nord University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Ludivine Chalumeau-LemoineGustave Roussy Institut, Villejuif, France.
Zoé Cohen-SolalAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Famiréa Research Group, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France.
Maité Garrouste-OrgeasSaint Joseph Hospital, Paris, France.
Fabienne TamionRouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Bruno FalissardParis-Sud Innovation Group in Mental Health, UMR 669, INSERM, Paris-Sud University, Paris, France.
Sylvie ChevretBiostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology research team, U1153, INSERM, Paris Diderot Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Elie AzoulayAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Famiréa Research Group, Saint-Louis University Hospital, Paris, France. elie.azoulay@sls.aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop an instrument designed specifically to assess the experience of relatives of patients who die in the intensive care unit (ICU).

methodsThe instrument was developed using a mixed methodology and validated in a prospective multicentre study. Relatives of patients who died in 41 ICUs completed the questionnaire by telephone 21 days after the death, then completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-Revised and Inventory of Complicated Grief after 3, 6, and 12 months.

resultsA total of 600 relatives were included, 475 in the main cohort and 125 in the reliability cohort. The 15-item questionnaire, named CAESAR, covered the patient's preferences and values, interactions with/around the patient and family satisfaction. We defined three groups based on CAESAR score tertiles: lowest (≤59, n = 107, 25.9 %), middle (n = 185, 44.8 %) and highest (≥69, n = 121, 29.3 %). Factorial analysis showed a single dimension. Cronbach's alpha in the main and reliability cohorts was 0.88 (0.85-0.90) and 0.85 (0.79-0.89), respectively. Compared to a high CAESAR score, a low CAESAR score was associated with greater risks of anxiety and depression at 3 months [1.29 (1.13-1.46), p = 0.001], post-traumatic stress-related symptoms at 3 [1.34 (1.17-1.53), p < 0.001], 6 [OR = 1.24 (1.06-1.44), p = 0.008] and 12 [OR = 1.26 (1.06-1.50), p = 0.01] months and complicated grief at 6 [OR = 1.40 (1.20-1.63), p < 0.001] and 12 months [OR = 1.27 (1.06-1.52), p = 0.01].

conclusionsThe CAESAR score 21 days after death in the ICU is strongly associated with post-ICU burden in the bereaved relatives. The CAESAR score should prove a useful primary endpoint in trials of interventions to improve relatives' well-being.

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathGriefIntensive Care UnitsAnxietyDecision MakingDepressionFamilyFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsBereavementComplicated griefDeathIntensive care unitRelatives

Identifiers

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.