评估干预措施预防和/或治疗危重成人谵妄的核心结果集:一项国际共识研究(Del-COrS)。

Louise Rose, Bronagh Blackwood, Dale M Needham, John W Devlin, Mike Clarke, Lisa D Burry
{"title":"评估干预措施预防和/或治疗危重成人谵妄的核心结果集:一项国际共识研究(Del-COrS)。","authors":"Louise Rose,&nbsp;Bronagh Blackwood,&nbsp;Dale M Needham,&nbsp;John W Devlin,&nbsp;Mike Clarke,&nbsp;Lisa D Burry","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>International consensus process.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three virtual meetings (April 2021).</p><p><strong>Patients/subjects: </strong>Critical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Measures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Consensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 4","pages":"e0884"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cf/45/cc9-5-e0884.PMC10072315.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measures for the Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS).\",\"authors\":\"Louise Rose,&nbsp;Bronagh Blackwood,&nbsp;Dale M Needham,&nbsp;John W Devlin,&nbsp;Mike Clarke,&nbsp;Lisa D Burry\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>International consensus process.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three virtual meetings (April 2021).</p><p><strong>Patients/subjects: </strong>Critical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Measures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Consensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"e0884\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cf/45/cc9-5-e0884.PMC10072315.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000884\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在我们的核心结局集(COS)预防和/或治疗危重成人谵妄干预试验的结局(谵妄发生、严重程度、缓解时间、死亡率、健康相关生活质量[HrQoL]、情绪困扰(包括焦虑、抑郁、急性应激和创伤后应激障碍)和认知)的测量方法上取得共识。设计:国际共识过程。设置:三次虚拟会议(2021年4月)。患者/受试者:来自六个国家的危重疾病幸存者/家属、临床医生和研究人员。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:测量(根据仪器有效性、现有建议和可行性选择)和测量时间范围进行了讨论。参与者对仪器和测量时间进行投票(先验共识阈值≥70%)。18名利益相关者(28%的ICU幸存者/家庭成员)参与了研究。我们对测量谵妄发生和谵妄消退的混乱评估方法(icu或重症监护谵妄筛查清单)(100%)、用于测量情绪困扰的医院焦虑和抑郁量表(71%)和用于认知的蒙特利尔认知评估盲法(83%)达成了共识。我们对EQ-5D的HrQoL五级(69%)或6个月时的测量没有达成共识。我们也没有就事件量表(IES)-修订或IES-6对创伤后应激的影响(65%)或谵妄严重程度的测量工具(包括谵妄相关情绪困扰)达成共识。我们无法就何时开始和何时停止评估谵妄的发生和解决时间以及何时确定死亡率达成共识。我们一致认为,情绪困扰和认知应该在出院后12个月内进行测量。结论:对危重症成人谵妄预防或治疗试验的COS的7个结局中的4个结局的测量仪器达成了共识。需要进一步的工作来验证谵妄严重程度的仪器,包括谵妄相关的情绪困扰。
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
Measures for the Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS).

To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults.

Design: International consensus process.

Setting: Three virtual meetings (April 2021).

Patients/subjects: Critical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Measures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge.

Conclusions: Consensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A New Dosing Frontier: Retrospective Assessment of Effluent Flow Rates and Residual Renal Function Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Hemodynamic Determinants of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19 Knowledge and Practice Gaps in Pediatric Neurocritical Care Nursing: Lessons Learned From a Specialized Educational Boot Camp Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond–Forrester Classification
×
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