Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background With rising health care costs and the diversity of scientific and clinical information available to health care providers it is essential to have methodologies that synthesize and distill the quality of information and make it practical to clinicians, patients and policy makers. Too often research synthesis results in the statement that “more and better research is needed” or the conclusions are slanted toward the biases of one type of stakeholder. Such conclusions are discouraging to clinicians and patients who need better guidance on the decisions they make every day. Method Expert panels are one method for offering valuable insight into the scientific evidence and what experts believe about its application to a given clinical situation. However, with improper management their conclusions can end up being biased or even wrong. There are several types of expert panels, but two that have been extensively involved in bringing evidence to bear on clinical practice are consensus panels , and appropriateness panels . These types of panels are utilized by organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, RAND, and other organizations to provide clinical guidance. However, there is a need for a more cost effective and efficient approach in conducting these panels. In this paper we describe both types of expert panels and ways to adapt those models to form part of Samueli Institute’s Scientific Evaluation and Research of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™) program. Discussion Expert Panels provide evidence-based information to guide research, practice and health care decision making. The panel process used in SEaRCH seeks to customize, synthesize and streamline these methods. By making the process transparent the panel process informs decisions about clinical appropriateness and research agenda decisions.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients’ representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines for adults, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include the post-cardiac arrest syndrome, diagnosis of cause of cardiac arrest, control of oxygenation and ventilation, coronary reperfusion, haemodynamic monitoring and management, control of seizures, temperature control, general intensive care management, prognostication, long-term outcome, rehabilitation and organ donation.

Background Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. Methods We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. Results We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. Conclusions Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.

PurposeThis Position Paper aims to review and discuss the available data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antibacterials, antifungals and antivirals in critically ill adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This Position Paper also provides a practical guide on how TDM can be applied in routine clinical practice to improve therapeutic outcomes in critically ill adult patients. MethodsLiterature review and analysis were performed by Panel Members nominated by the endorsing organisations, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic and Critically Ill Patient Study Groups of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT) and International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC). Panel members made recommendations for whether TDM should be applied clinically for different antimicrobials/classes.ResultsTDM-guided dosing has been shown to be clinically beneficial for aminoglycosides, voriconazole and ribavirin. For most common antibiotics and antifungals in the ICU, a clear therapeutic range has been established, and for these agents, routine TDM in critically ill patients appears meritorious. For the antivirals, research is needed to identify therapeutic targets and determine whether antiviral TDM is indeed meritorious in this patient population. The Panel Members recommend routine TDM to be performed for aminoglycosides, beta-lactam antibiotics, linezolid, teicoplanin, vancomycin and voriconazole in critically ill patients.ConclusionAlthough TDM should be the standard of care for most antimicrobials in every ICU, important barriers need to be addressed before routine TDM can be widely employed worldwide.

PurposeTo provide clinical practice recommendations and generate a research agenda on mechanical ventilation and respiratory support in patients with acute brain injury (ABI).MethodsAn international consensus panel was convened including 29 clinician-scientists in intensive care medicine with expertise in acute respiratory failure, neurointensive care, or both, and two non-voting methodologists. The panel was divided into seven subgroups, each addressing a predefined clinical practice domain relevant to patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with ABI, defined as acute traumatic brain or cerebrovascular injury. The panel conducted systematic searches and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to evaluate evidence and formulate questions. A modified Delphi process was implemented with four rounds of voting in which panellists were asked to respond to questions (rounds 1–3) and then recommendation statements (final round). Strong recommendation, weak recommendation, or no recommendation were defined when > 85%, 75–85%, and < 75% of panellists, respectively, agreed with a statement.ResultsThe GRADE rating was low, very low, or absent across domains. The consensus produced 36 statements (19 strong recommendations, 6 weak recommendations, 11 no recommendation) regarding airway management, non-invasive respiratory support, strategies for mechanical ventilation, rescue interventions for respiratory failure, ventilator liberation, and tracheostomy in brain-injured patients. Several knowledge gaps were identified to inform future research efforts.ConclusionsThis consensus provides guidance for the care of patients admitted to the ICU with ABI. Evidence was generally insufficient or lacking, and research is needed to demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of different management approaches.

The minimum sample size for multistakeholder Delphi surveys remains understudied. Drawing from three large international multistakeholder Delphi surveys, this study aimed to: 1) investigate the effect of increasing sample size on replicability of results; 2) assess whether the level of replicability of results differed with participant characteristics: for example, gender, age, and profession. We used data from Delphi surveys to develop guidance for improved reporting of health-care intervention trials: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for surrogate end points (n = 175, 22 items rated); CONSORT-SPI [CONSORT extension for Social and Psychological Interventions] (n = 333, 77 items rated); and core outcome set for burn care (n = 553, 88 items rated). Resampling with replacement was used to draw random subsamples from the participant data set in each of the three surveys. For each subsample, the median value of all rated survey items was calculated and compared to the medians from the full participant data set. The median number (and interquartile range) of medians replicated was used to calculate the percentage replicability (and variability). High replicability was defined as ≥80% and moderate as 60% and <80% The average median replicability (variability) as a percentage of total number of items rated from the three datasets was 81% (10%) at a sample size of 60. In one of the datasets (CONSORT-SPI), a ≥80% replicability was reached at a sample size of 80. On average, increasing the sample size from 80 to 160 increased the replicability of results by a further 3% and reduced variability by 1%. For subgroup analysis based on participant characteristics (eg, gender, age, professional role), using resampled samples of 20 to 100 showed that a sample size of 20 to 30 resulted to moderate replicability levels of 64% to 77%. We found that a minimum sample size of 60–80 participants in multistakeholder Delphi surveys provides a high level of replicability (≥80%) in the results. For Delphi studies limited to individual stakeholder groups (such as researchers, clinicians, patients), a sample size of 20 to 30 per group may be sufficient. •A minimum sample size of 60 to 80 participants rating all items in multistakeholder Delphi surveys provides high levels of replicability (≥80%) of results.•For Delphi surveys including individual stakeholder groups (eg, researchers, clinicians, patients), a sample size of 20 to 30 rating all items per group may be sufficient.•The choice of the target sample size should further consider the response rates and attrition between Delphi survey rounds; diminishing returns of increasing sample size as estimated in this study; and diversity and expertise of participants.

PurposeThe aim of this document was to develop standardized research definitions of invasive fungal diseases (IFD) in non-neutropenic, adult patients without classical host factors for IFD, admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).MethodsAfter a systematic assessment of the diagnostic performance for IFD in the target population of already existing definitions and laboratory tests, consensus definitions were developed by a panel of experts using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.ResultsStandardized research definitions were developed for proven invasive candidiasis, probable deep-seated candidiasis, proven invasive aspergillosis, probable invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, and probable tracheobronchial aspergillosis. The limited evidence on the performance of existing definitions and laboratory tests for the diagnosis of IFD other than candidiasis and aspergillosis precluded the development of dedicated definitions, at least pending further data. The standardized definitions provided in the present document are aimed to speed-up the design, and increase the feasibility, of future comparative research studies.

Objective To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. Design A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. Methods The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. Results The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Conclusions Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

PurposeHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings.MethodsWe formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions.ResultsThe guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty).ConclusionsThis clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians.