Systematic review and literature appraisal on methodology of conducting and reporting critical-care echocardiography studies: a report from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine PRICES expert panel.
Fluid management
Guidelines
Intensive care
Left ventricle
Recommendations
Right ventricle
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Apr 2020
25 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
29
10
2019
accepted:
11
04
2020
entrez:
27
4
2020
pubmed:
27
4
2020
medline:
27
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research methodology and reporting based on a systematic appraisal of the current literature. Here is reported this systematic appraisal. We conducted a systematic review, registered on the Prospero database. A total of 43 items of common interest to all echocardiography studies were initially listed by the experts, and other "topic-specific" items were separated into five main categories of interest (left ventricular systolic function, LVSF n = 15, right ventricular function, RVF n = 18, left ventricular diastolic function, LVDF n = 15, fluid management, FM n = 7, and advanced echocardiography techniques, AET n = 17). We evaluated the percentage of items reported per study and the fraction of studies reporting a single item. From January 2000 till December 2017 a total of 209 articles were included after systematic search and screening, 97 for LVSF, 48 for RVF, 51 for LVDF, 36 for FM and 24 for AET. Shock and ARDS were relatively common among LVSF articles (both around 15%) while ARDS comprised 25% of RVF articles. Transthoracic echocardiography was the main echocardiography mode, in 87% of the articles for AET topic, followed by 81% for FM, 78% for LVDF, 70% for LVSF and 63% for RVF. The percentage of items per study as well as the fraction of study reporting an item was low or very low, except for FM. As an illustration, the left ventricular size was only reported by 56% of studies in the LVSF topic, and half studies assessing RVF reported data on pulmonary artery systolic pressure. This analysis confirmed sub-optimal reporting of several items listed by an expert panel. The analysis will help the experts in the development of guidelines for CCE study design and reporting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research methodology and reporting based on a systematic appraisal of the current literature. Here is reported this systematic appraisal.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review, registered on the Prospero database. A total of 43 items of common interest to all echocardiography studies were initially listed by the experts, and other "topic-specific" items were separated into five main categories of interest (left ventricular systolic function, LVSF n = 15, right ventricular function, RVF n = 18, left ventricular diastolic function, LVDF n = 15, fluid management, FM n = 7, and advanced echocardiography techniques, AET n = 17). We evaluated the percentage of items reported per study and the fraction of studies reporting a single item.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From January 2000 till December 2017 a total of 209 articles were included after systematic search and screening, 97 for LVSF, 48 for RVF, 51 for LVDF, 36 for FM and 24 for AET. Shock and ARDS were relatively common among LVSF articles (both around 15%) while ARDS comprised 25% of RVF articles. Transthoracic echocardiography was the main echocardiography mode, in 87% of the articles for AET topic, followed by 81% for FM, 78% for LVDF, 70% for LVSF and 63% for RVF. The percentage of items per study as well as the fraction of study reporting an item was low or very low, except for FM. As an illustration, the left ventricular size was only reported by 56% of studies in the LVSF topic, and half studies assessing RVF reported data on pulmonary artery systolic pressure.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis confirmed sub-optimal reporting of several items listed by an expert panel. The analysis will help the experts in the development of guidelines for CCE study design and reporting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32335780
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00662-y
pii: 10.1186/s13613-020-00662-y
pmc: PMC7183522
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
49Références
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Sep;43(9):1257-1269
pubmed: 28271320
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jun;45(6):770-788
pubmed: 30911808
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019 Mar;8(2):130-141
pubmed: 30403364
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jun;41(6):1178-9
pubmed: 25851394
Crit Care. 2014 Dec 15;18(6):688
pubmed: 25498795
Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009 Mar;10(2):165-93
pubmed: 19270053
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Jun;39(6):1025-33
pubmed: 23474659
Intensive Care Med. 2016 May;42(5):739-749
pubmed: 27038480
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Oct 1;119(4):583-594
pubmed: 29121301
Crit Care. 2013 May 27;17(3):R96
pubmed: 23706109
Crit Care. 2018 Aug 4;22(1):183
pubmed: 30075792
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017 Oct;31(5):1681-1691
pubmed: 28506541
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jul;45(7):928-938
pubmed: 31089761
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Sep 17;62(12):1103-1111
pubmed: 23831444
Chest. 2009 Apr;135(4):1050-1060
pubmed: 19188546
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Burns. 2014 Jun;40(4):630-5
pubmed: 24035579
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Dec;17(12):1321-1360
pubmed: 27422899
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jun;41(6):1004-13
pubmed: 25800584