Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30720539›Full record

SynthesisCritical care medicine2019

Impact of the Advanced Practice Provider in Adult Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Herman G Kreeftenberg, Sjaak Pouwels, Alexander J G H Bindels, Ashley de Bie, Peter H J van der Voort

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. [Hemodynamic monitoring- (NOT) a nursing task?!]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024
    Article
  11. Fertility Preservation in Individuals with Cancer: A Joint Position Statement from APHON, CANO/ACIO, and ONS.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Herman G KreeftenbergDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Sjaak PouwelsDepartment of Surgery, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam/Schiedam, The Netherlands.
Alexander J G H BindelsDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Ashley de BieDepartment of Internal Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Peter H J van der VoortDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Catharina Ziekenhuis · NLFranciscus Vlietland · NLOLVG · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effects on quality and efficiency of implementation of the advanced practice provider in critical care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were used to extract articles regarding advanced practice providers in critical care. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected when reporting a comparison between advanced practice providers and physician resident/fellows regarding the outcome measures of mortality, length of stay, or specific tasks. Descriptive studies without comparison were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was rated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The agreement between the reviewers was assessed with Cohen's kappa. A meta-analysis was constructed on mortality and length of stay. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One-hundred fifty-six studies were assessed by full text. Thirty comparative cohort studies were selected and analyzed. These compared advanced practice providers with physician resident/fellows. All studies comprised adult intensive care. Most of the included studies showed a moderate to good quality. Over time, the study designs advanced from retrospective designs to include prospective and comparative designs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four random effects meta-analyses on length of stay and mortality were constructed from the available studies. These meta-analyses showed no significant difference between performance of advanced practice providers on the ICU and physician residents/fellows on the ICU, suggesting the quality of care of both groups was equal. Mean difference for length of stay on the ICU was 0.34 (95% CI, -0.31 to 1.00; I = 99%) and for in hospital length of stay 0.02 (95% CI, -0.85 to 0.89; I = 91%); whereas the odds ratio for ICU mortality was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.81-1.19; I = 37.3%) and for hospital mortality 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79-1.07; I = 28%).

conclusionsThis review and meta-analysis shows no differences between acute care given by advanced practice providers compared with physician resident/fellows measured as length of stay or mortality. However, advanced practice providers might add value to care in several other ways, but this needs further study.

Indexed as

AdultCritical CareCritical IllnessHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient Discharge

Identifiers

PMID30720539
OpenAlexW2914973068

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.