ArticlePloS one2019
Assessment of early goal-directed therapy guideline adherence: Balancing clinical importance and feasibility.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing adherence to Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is challenging and might account for the negative findings and generalisability of the major trials to a real-life setting. This study was aimed (1) to extract key components of pediatric EGDT guidelines potentially becoming adherence criteria; (2) to classify adherence criteria into complete, clinically important, and feasible; and (3) to compare percent adherence to selected guidelines using the three approaches.
methodsThis study started with review of existing evidence to extract key components of pediatric EGDT guidelines. Modified Delphi method was then conducted in two rounds among national experts to identify feasible and/or clinically important criteria. Data from the national prospective multicenter study "Clinical Effectiveness of the Utilization of Bundled Care for Severe Sepsis and Septicemia Children" at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (KCMH) during 1 June 2012 and 28 February 2014 was used to compare percentage of adherence across the three approaches.
resultsOf 28 components extracted from the review, 10 were identified by the national experts through the Modified Delphi as feasible whereas 8 were identified as clinically important. Thirty-one severe sepsis patients (48.39% male, median age 3.4 years) were reviewed. Sepsis mortality was 9.7%, a significant reduction from 19% and 42% in 2010 and 2007, respectively. Based on the complete adherence criteria, the percent adherence varied from 60.71% to 89.29% (overall mean 76.84%), with lower adherence in the dead than the survived cases (73.81% vs 77.17%; p = 0.55). The percent adherence varied by criteria used: 69.35%, 76.84%, and 84.52% for clinical importance, complete, and feasibility criteria, respectively.
conclusionAdherence determination based on selected clinical importance alone might result in an incorrectly estimated clinical benefit of EGDT guidelines, especially in a resource-limited setting. Both clinical importance and feasibility should be integrated into the development of adherence assessment criteria.
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.