意识障碍的通用数据元素:结果和终点工作组的建议。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02068-1
Yelena G Bodien, Kerri LaRovere, Daniel Kondziella, Shaurya Taran, Anna Estraneo, Lori Shutter
{"title":"意识障碍的通用数据元素:结果和终点工作组的建议。","authors":"Yelena G Bodien, Kerri LaRovere, Daniel Kondziella, Shaurya Taran, Anna Estraneo, Lori Shutter","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02068-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical management of persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) is dedicated largely to optimizing recovery. However, selecting a measure to evaluate the extent of recovery is challenging because few measures are designed to precisely assess the full range of potential outcomes, from prolonged DoC to return of preinjury functioning. Measures that are designed specifically to assess persons with DoC are often performance-based and only validated for in-person use. Moreover, there are no published recommendations addressing which outcome measures should be used to evaluate DoC recovery. The resulting inconsistency in the measures selected by individual investigators to assess outcome prevents comparison of results across DoC studies. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) common data elements (CDEs) is an amalgamation of standardized variables and tools that are recommended for use in studies of neurologic diseases and injuries. The Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign launched an initiative to develop CDEs specifically for DoC and invited our group to recommend CDE outcomes and endpoints for persons with DoCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Curing Coma Campaign Outcomes and Endpoints CDE Workgroup, consisting of experts in adult and pediatric neurocritical care, neurology, and neuroscience, used a previously established five-step process to identify and select candidate CDEs: (1) review of existing NINDS CDEs, (2) nomination and systematic vetting of new CDEs, (3) CDE classification, (4) iterative review and approval of panel recommendations, and (5) development of case report forms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among hundreds of existing NINDS outcome and endpoint CDE measures, we identified 20 for adults and 18 for children that can be used to assess the full range of recovery from coma. We also proposed 14 new outcome and endpoint CDE measures for adults and 5 for children.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The DoC outcome and endpoint CDEs are a starting point in the broader effort to standardize outcome evaluation of persons with DoC. The ultimate goal is to harmonize DoC studies and allow for more precise assessment of outcomes after severe brain injury or illness. An iterative approach is required to modify and adjust these outcome and endpoint CDEs as new evidence emerges.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group on Outcomes and  Endpoints.\",\"authors\":\"Yelena G Bodien, Kerri LaRovere, Daniel Kondziella, Shaurya Taran, Anna Estraneo, Lori Shutter\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12028-024-02068-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical management of persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) is dedicated largely to optimizing recovery. However, selecting a measure to evaluate the extent of recovery is challenging because few measures are designed to precisely assess the full range of potential outcomes, from prolonged DoC to return of preinjury functioning. Measures that are designed specifically to assess persons with DoC are often performance-based and only validated for in-person use. Moreover, there are no published recommendations addressing which outcome measures should be used to evaluate DoC recovery. The resulting inconsistency in the measures selected by individual investigators to assess outcome prevents comparison of results across DoC studies. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) common data elements (CDEs) is an amalgamation of standardized variables and tools that are recommended for use in studies of neurologic diseases and injuries. The Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign launched an initiative to develop CDEs specifically for DoC and invited our group to recommend CDE outcomes and endpoints for persons with DoCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Curing Coma Campaign Outcomes and Endpoints CDE Workgroup, consisting of experts in adult and pediatric neurocritical care, neurology, and neuroscience, used a previously established five-step process to identify and select candidate CDEs: (1) review of existing NINDS CDEs, (2) nomination and systematic vetting of new CDEs, (3) CDE classification, (4) iterative review and approval of panel recommendations, and (5) development of case report forms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among hundreds of existing NINDS outcome and endpoint CDE measures, we identified 20 for adults and 18 for children that can be used to assess the full range of recovery from coma. We also proposed 14 new outcome and endpoint CDE measures for adults and 5 for children.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The DoC outcome and endpoint CDEs are a starting point in the broader effort to standardize outcome evaluation of persons with DoC. The ultimate goal is to harmonize DoC studies and allow for more precise assessment of outcomes after severe brain injury or illness. An iterative approach is required to modify and adjust these outcome and endpoint CDEs as new evidence emerges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02068-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02068-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:意识障碍(DoC)患者的临床管理主要致力于优化康复。然而,选择一种评估康复程度的测量方法却很有挑战性,因为很少有测量方法是为了精确评估从意识障碍延长到恢复受伤前功能的所有潜在结果而设计的。专为评估 DoC 患者而设计的测量方法通常以表现为基础,并且只在面对面使用时才会得到验证。此外,目前还没有公开的建议来说明应该使用哪些结果测量来评估 DoC 恢复情况。因此,各个研究者所选择的评估结果的方法并不一致,这阻碍了对不同 DoC 研究结果的比较。美国国立神经疾病与中风研究所(NINDS)的通用数据元素(CDEs)是标准化变量和工具的综合体,建议在神经疾病和损伤研究中使用。神经重症监护协会治疗昏迷运动发起了一项倡议,专门为DoC开发CDEs,并邀请我们小组为DoC患者推荐CDE结果和终点:由成人和儿童神经重症监护、神经病学和神经科学专家组成的 "治愈昏迷运动结局和终点CDE工作组 "采用先前建立的五步流程来确定和选择候选CDE:(1)审查现有的NINDS CDE,(2)提名和系统审查新的CDE,(3)CDE分类,(4)反复审查和批准小组建议,以及(5)开发病例报告表:结果:在数百项现有的 NINDS 结果和终点 CDE 测量中,我们确定了 20 项成人测量和 18 项儿童测量,可用于评估昏迷后的全面恢复情况。我们还提出了 14 项新的成人结果和终点 CDE 测量方法和 5 项儿童测量方法:DoC结局和终点CDE是DoC患者结局评估标准化工作的一个起点。最终目标是统一 DoC 研究,对严重脑损伤或疾病后的结果进行更精确的评估。随着新证据的出现,需要采用迭代方法来修改和调整这些结果和终点 CDE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group on Outcomes and  Endpoints.

Background: Clinical management of persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) is dedicated largely to optimizing recovery. However, selecting a measure to evaluate the extent of recovery is challenging because few measures are designed to precisely assess the full range of potential outcomes, from prolonged DoC to return of preinjury functioning. Measures that are designed specifically to assess persons with DoC are often performance-based and only validated for in-person use. Moreover, there are no published recommendations addressing which outcome measures should be used to evaluate DoC recovery. The resulting inconsistency in the measures selected by individual investigators to assess outcome prevents comparison of results across DoC studies. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) common data elements (CDEs) is an amalgamation of standardized variables and tools that are recommended for use in studies of neurologic diseases and injuries. The Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign launched an initiative to develop CDEs specifically for DoC and invited our group to recommend CDE outcomes and endpoints for persons with DoCs.

Methods: The Curing Coma Campaign Outcomes and Endpoints CDE Workgroup, consisting of experts in adult and pediatric neurocritical care, neurology, and neuroscience, used a previously established five-step process to identify and select candidate CDEs: (1) review of existing NINDS CDEs, (2) nomination and systematic vetting of new CDEs, (3) CDE classification, (4) iterative review and approval of panel recommendations, and (5) development of case report forms.

Results: Among hundreds of existing NINDS outcome and endpoint CDE measures, we identified 20 for adults and 18 for children that can be used to assess the full range of recovery from coma. We also proposed 14 new outcome and endpoint CDE measures for adults and 5 for children.

Conclusions: The DoC outcome and endpoint CDEs are a starting point in the broader effort to standardize outcome evaluation of persons with DoC. The ultimate goal is to harmonize DoC studies and allow for more precise assessment of outcomes after severe brain injury or illness. An iterative approach is required to modify and adjust these outcome and endpoint CDEs as new evidence emerges.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
期刊最新文献
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of External Ventricular Drains and Intraparenchymal Pressure Monitors for Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Correction: Risk Factors for Cerebral Vasospasm After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Looking Back at the Lance-Adams Syndrome: Uncommon and Unalike. Variations in Autoregulation-Based Optimal Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Determination Using Two Integrated Neuromonitoring Platforms in a Trauma Patient. Association Between Early Mobilization and Functional Outcomes in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched 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