| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- De Jong, VMT, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical prediction models for mortality in patients with covid-19: external validation and individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ (Clinical research ed.). - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 378, s. e069881-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveTo externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19.DesignTwo stage individual participant data meta-analysis.SettingSecondary and tertiary care.Participants46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021.Data sourcesMultiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published inThe BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge.Model selection and eligibility criteriaPrognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor.MethodsEight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters.Main outcome measures30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality.ResultsDatasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al’s model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28).ConclusionThe prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Thoma, B, et al.
(författare)
-
An international, interprofessional investigation of the self-reported podcast listening habits of emergency clinicians: A METRIQ Study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: CJEM. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1481-8043 .- 1481-8035. ; 22:1, s. 112-117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectivesPodcasts are increasingly being used for medical education. A deeper understanding of usage patterns would inform both producers and researchers of medical podcasts. We aimed to determine how and why podcasts are used by emergency medicine and critical care clinicians.MethodsAn international interprofessional sample (medical students, residents, physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and paramedics) was recruited through direct contact and a multimodal social media (Twitter and Facebook) campaign. Each participant completed a survey outlining how and why they utilize medical podcasts. Recruitment materials included an infographic and study website.Results390 participants from 33 countries and 4 professions (medicine, nursing, paramedicine, physician assistant) completed the survey. Participants most frequently listened to medical podcasts to review new literature (75.8%), learn core material (75.1%), and refresh memory (71.8%). The majority (62.6%) were aware of the ability to listen at increased speeds, but most (76.9%) listened at 1.0 x (normal) speed. All but 25 (6.4%) participants concurrently performed other tasks while listening. Driving (72.3%), exercising (39.7%), and completing chores (39.2%) were the most common. A minority of participants used active learning techniques such as pausing, rewinding, and replaying segments of the podcast. Very few listened to podcasts multiple times.ConclusionsAn international cohort of emergency clinicians use medical podcasts predominantly for learning. Their listening habits (rarely employing active learning strategies and frequently performing concurrent tasks) may not support this goal. Further exploration of the impact of these activities on learning from podcasts is warranted.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
