Methodological management of end-of-life decision data in intensive care studies: A systematic review of 178 randomized control trials published in seven major journals.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
29
08
2018
accepted:
06
05
2019
entrez:
29
5
2019
pubmed:
29
5
2019
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
End-of-life (EOL) decisions are a serious ethical dilemma and are frequently carried out in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this systematic review was to investigated the different approaches used in ICUs and reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address EOL decisions and compare the impact of these different strategies regarding potential bias and mortality estimates. We identified relevant RCTs published in the past 15 years via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched The Cochrane Library and checked registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov to assess concordance between declared and published outcomes. Among the journals we screened were the 3 ICU specialty journals and the four general medicine journals with the highest impact factor. Only RCTs were selected in which in-ICU mortality was the primary or secondary outcome. The primary outcome was information regarding EOL decisions, and the secondary outcome was how EOL decisions were treated in the study analysis. A total of 178 relevant trials were identified. The details regarding the methodological aspects resulting from EOL decisions were reported in only 62 articles (35%). The manner in which EOL decisions were considered in the study analysis was very heterogeneous, often leading to a high risk of bias. There is a heterogeneity regarding the management of data on EOL decisions in randomized control trials with mortality endpoints. Recommendations or rules are required regarding the inclusion of patients with potential EOL decisions in RCT analyses and how to manage such decisions from a methodological point of view. PROSPERO website (CRD42013005724).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
End-of-life (EOL) decisions are a serious ethical dilemma and are frequently carried out in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this systematic review was to investigated the different approaches used in ICUs and reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address EOL decisions and compare the impact of these different strategies regarding potential bias and mortality estimates.
METHODS
We identified relevant RCTs published in the past 15 years via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched The Cochrane Library and checked registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov to assess concordance between declared and published outcomes. Among the journals we screened were the 3 ICU specialty journals and the four general medicine journals with the highest impact factor. Only RCTs were selected in which in-ICU mortality was the primary or secondary outcome. The primary outcome was information regarding EOL decisions, and the secondary outcome was how EOL decisions were treated in the study analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 178 relevant trials were identified. The details regarding the methodological aspects resulting from EOL decisions were reported in only 62 articles (35%). The manner in which EOL decisions were considered in the study analysis was very heterogeneous, often leading to a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
There is a heterogeneity regarding the management of data on EOL decisions in randomized control trials with mortality endpoints. Recommendations or rules are required regarding the inclusion of patients with potential EOL decisions in RCT analyses and how to manage such decisions from a methodological point of view.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO website (CRD42013005724).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31136601
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217134
pii: PONE-D-18-25208
pmc: PMC6538318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0217134Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):R5
pubmed: 16356211
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Lancet. 2005 Jun 18-24;365(9477):2091-7
pubmed: 15964445
Respir Care. 2018 Aug;63(8):1060-1069
pubmed: 29991643
Injury. 2019 May;50(5):1064-1067
pubmed: 30745124
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997 Jan;155(1):15-20
pubmed: 9001282
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Jul;35(7):511-518
pubmed: 29419564
Crit Care Med. 2004 Aug;32(8):1689-94
pubmed: 15286545
J Crit Care. 2018 Oct;47:21-29
pubmed: 29886063
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1283-97
pubmed: 19318384
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Lancet. 2001 Jan 6;357(9249):9-14
pubmed: 11197395
Crit Care Med. 2008 Jul;36(7):2092-9
pubmed: 18552687
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Dec;33(12):2093-100
pubmed: 17928994
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Feb;40(2):171-81
pubmed: 24420499
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2001 Dec;20(10):823-5
pubmed: 11803841
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Nov;29(11):1895-901
pubmed: 14530857
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
JAMA. 2003 Aug 13;290(6):790-7
pubmed: 12915432
Crit Care Med. 1997 Aug;25(8):1324-31
pubmed: 9267945
Crit Care Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):428-37
pubmed: 20095068
Crit Care Med. 2009 Feb;37(2):545-52
pubmed: 19114912