Quality of causality assessment among observational studies in intensive care: A methodological review.

Laura Del Campo-Albendea, Ana García De La Santa Viñuela, Óscar Peñuelas, José Ignacio Pijoan Zubizarreta, Khalid Saeed Khan, Alfonso Muriel, Javier Zamora
{"title":"Quality of causality assessment among observational studies in intensive care: A methodological review.","authors":"Laura Del Campo-Albendea, Ana García De La Santa Viñuela, Óscar Peñuelas, José Ignacio Pijoan Zubizarreta, Khalid Saeed Khan, Alfonso Muriel, Javier Zamora","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intensive care units (ICUs) rely in many instances on observational research and often encounter difficulties in establishing cause-and-effect relationships. After conducting a thorough search focused on ICU observational studies, this review analysed the causal language and evaluated the quality of reporting of the methodologies employed. The causal was assessed by analysing the words linking exposure to outcomes in the title and main objective. The quality of the reporting of the key methodological aspects related to causal inference was based on STROBE and ROBINS-I tools. We identified 139 articles, with 87 (63%) and 82 (59%) studies having non-causal language in their title and main objective, respectively. Among the total, 49 (35%) articles directly addressed causality. The review found vague causal language in observational ICU research and highlighted the need for better adherence to reporting guidelines for improved causal analysis and inference.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intensive care units (ICUs) rely in many instances on observational research and often encounter difficulties in establishing cause-and-effect relationships. After conducting a thorough search focused on ICU observational studies, this review analysed the causal language and evaluated the quality of reporting of the methodologies employed. The causal was assessed by analysing the words linking exposure to outcomes in the title and main objective. The quality of the reporting of the key methodological aspects related to causal inference was based on STROBE and ROBINS-I tools. We identified 139 articles, with 87 (63%) and 82 (59%) studies having non-causal language in their title and main objective, respectively. Among the total, 49 (35%) articles directly addressed causality. The review found vague causal language in observational ICU research and highlighted the need for better adherence to reporting guidelines for improved causal analysis and inference.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of training models as a method to improve the acquisition of skills in Intensive Care Medicine. Ineffective respiratory efforts and their potential consequences during mechanical ventilation. Impact of COVID-19 in the in-hospital cardiac arrest activations: Retrospective study. Quality of causality assessment among observational studies in intensive care: A methodological review. Did intubation procedures for critically ill patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection change during the pandemic? Secondary analysis of the INTUPROS multicenter study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1