| 1. |
- Niemelä, Ville, et al.
(författare)
-
Higher versus lower blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest : Systematic review with individual patient data meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - 0300-9572. ; 189
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Guidelines recommend targeting mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg in patients after cardiac arrest (CA). Recent trials have studied the effects of targeting a higher MAP as compared to a lower MAP after CA. We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the effects of higher versus lower MAP targets on patient outcome. Method: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Scopus, the Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, Google Scholar and the Turning Research into Practice database to identify trials randomizing patients to higher (≥71 mmHg) or lower (≤70 mmHg) MAP targets after CA and resuscitation. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2 (RoB 2) to assess for risk of bias. The primary outcomes were 180-day all-cause mortality and poor neurologic recovery defined by a modified Rankin score of 4–6 or a cerebral performance category score of 3–5. Results: Four eligible clinical trials were identified, randomizing a total of 1,087 patients. All the included trials were assessed as having a low risk for bias. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval for 180-day all-cause mortality for a higher versus a lower MAP target was 1.08 (0.92–1.26) and for poor neurologic recovery 1.01 (0.86–1.19). Trial sequential analysis showed that a 25% or higher treatment effect, i.e., RR < 0.75, can be excluded. No difference in serious adverse events was found between the higher and lower MAP groups. Conclusions: Targeting a higher MAP compared to a lower MAP is unlikely to reduce mortality or improve neurologic recovery after CA. Only a large treatment effect above 25% (RR < 0.75) could be excluded, and future studies are needed to investigate if relevant but lower treatment effect exists. Targeting a higher MAP was not associated with any increase in adverse effects.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jørgensen, Caroline Kamp, et al.
(författare)
-
Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME) : A Consortium Initiative for Improving Methodology in Randomised Clinical Trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Services Insights. - 1178-6329. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.
|
|
