Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34393177›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2021

What intensive care registries can teach us about outcomes.

Abi Beane, Jorge I F Salluh, Rashan Haniffa

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06033404 (Registry of Patients Undergoing Anesthesia or Intensive Care Maneuvers), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

NCT06033404 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Registry of Patients Undergoing Anesthesia or Intensive Care Maneuvers

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversità Vita-Salute San RaffaeleRan2023 to 2033Enrolled30,000ConditionsAnesthesia, Critical CareArmsNormal Clinical practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Establishing a paediatric critical care core quality measure set using a multistakeholder, consensus-driven process.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abi BeaneMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Oxford University, UK.
Jorge I F SalluhD'Or Institute for Research and Education (IDOR).
Rashan HaniffaMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Oxford University, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V030884/1Wellcome Trust 215522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCritical care registries are synonymous with measurement of outcomes following critical illness. Their ability to provide longitudinal data to enable benchmarking of outcomes for comparison within units over time, and between units, both regionally and nationally is a key part of the evaluation of quality of care and ICU performance as well as a better understanding of case-mix. This review aims to summarize literature on outcome measures currently being reported in registries internationally, describe the current strengths and challenges with interpreting existing outcomes and highlight areas where registries may help improve implementation and interpretation of both existing and new outcome measures. RECENT

findingsOutcomes being widely reported through ICU registries include measures of survival, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes and measures of resource utilization (including cost). Despite its increasing adoption, challenges with quality of reporting of outcomes measures remain. Measures of short-term survival are feasible but those requiring longer follow-ups are increasingly difficult to interpret given the evolving nature of critical care in the context of acute and chronic disease management. Furthermore, heterogeneity in patient populations and in healthcare organisations in different settings makes use of outcome measures for international benchmarking at best complex, requiring substantial advances in their definitions and implementation to support those seeking to improve patient care. SUMMARY: Digital registries could help overcome some of the current challenges with implementing and interpreting ICU outcome data through standardization of reporting and harmonization of data. In addition, ICU registries could be instrumental in enabling data for feedback as part of improvement in both patient-centred outcomes and in service outcomes; notably resource utilization and efficiency.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical IllnessDelivery of Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRegistries

Identifiers

PMID34393177
PMCPMC7611614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.