| 1. |
- Melsen, Wilhelmina G., et al.
(author)
-
Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies
- 2013
-
In: The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. - 1474-4457. ; 13:8, s. 665-671
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Estimating attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia has been hampered by confounding factors, small sample sizes, and the difficulty of doing relevant subgroup analyses. We estimated the attributable mortality using the individual original patient data of published randomised trials of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention. Methods We identified relevant studies through systematic review. We analysed individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analytical approach (in which we defined attributable mortality as the ratio between the relative risk reductions [RRR] of mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia) and in competing risk analyses. Predefined subgroups included surgical, trauma, and medical patients, and patients with different categories of severity of illness scores. Findings Individual patient data were available for 6284 patients from 24 trials. The overall attributable mortality was 13%, with higher mortality rates in surgical patients and patients with mid-range severity scores at admission (ie, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score [APACHE] 20-29 and simplified acute physiology score [SAPS 2] 35-58). Attributable mortality was close to zero in trauma, medical patients, and patients with low or high severity of illness scores. Competing risk analyses could be done for 5162 patients from 19 studies, and the overall daily hazard for intensive care unit (ICU) mortality after ventilator-associated pneumonia was 1.13 (95% CI 0.98-1.31). The overall daily risk of discharge after ventilator-associated pneumonia was 0.74 (0-68-0.80), leading to an overall cumulative risk for dying in the ICU of 2.20 (1.91-2.54). Highest cumulative risks for dying from ventilator-associated pneumonia were noted for surgical patients (2.97,95% CI 2-24-3-94) and patients with mid-range severity scores at admission (ie, cumulative risks of 2.49 [1.81-3-44] for patients with APACHE scores of 20-29 and 2.72 [1.95-3.78] for those with SAPS 2 scores of 35-58). Interpretation The overall attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia is 13%, with higher rates for surgical patients and patients with a mid-range severity score at admission. Attributable mortality is mainly caused by prolonged exposure to the risk of dying due to increased length of ICU stay.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wijn, Stan R.W., et al.
(author)
-
Arthroscopic meniscectomy versus non-surgical or sham treatment in patients with MRI confirmed degenerative meniscus lesions : A protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2020
-
In: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) after degenerative meniscus tears is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in orthopaedics. Although several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published that showed no clear benefit compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment, the incidence of APM remains high. The common perception by most orthopaedic surgeons is that there are subgroups of patients that do need APM to improve, and they argue that each study sample of the existing trials is not representative for the day-to-day patients in the clinic. Therefore, the objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is to assess whether there are subgroups of patients with degenerative meniscus lesions who benefit from APM in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment. Methods and analysis: An existing systematic review will be updated to identify all RCTs worldwide that evaluated APM compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment in patients with knee symptoms and degenerative meniscus tears. Time and effort will be spent in contacting principal investigators of the original trials and encourage them to collaborate in this project by sharing their trial data. All individual participant data will be validated for missing data, internal data consistency, randomisation integrity and censoring patterns. After validation, all datasets will be combined and analysed using a one-staged and two-staged approach. The RCTs' characteristics will be used for the assessment of clinical homogeneity and generalisability of the findings. The most important outcome will be the difference between APM and control groups in knee pain, function and quality of life 2 years after the intervention. Other outcomes of interest will include the difference in adverse events and mental health. Ethics and dissemination: All trial data will be anonymised before it is shared with the authors. The data will be encrypted and stored on a secure server located in the Netherlands. No major ethical concerns remain. This IPDMA will provide the evidence base to update and tailor diagnostic and treatment protocols as well as (international) guidelines for patients for whom orthopaedic surgeons consider APM. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
|
|
| 3. |
- Wijn, Stan R.W., et al.
(author)
-
Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for the degenerative meniscus tear : a comparison of patients included in RCTs and prospective cohort studies
- 2023
-
In: Acta Orthopaedica. - 1745-3674. ; 94, s. 570-576
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and purpose — Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) to treat degenerative meniscus tears. It has been suggested that study populations are not representative of subjects selected for surgery in daily clinical practice. There-fore, we aimed to compare patients included in trials and prospective cohort studies that received APM for a degenerative meniscus tear. Patients and methods — Individual participant data from 4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies undergoing APM were collected. 1,970 patients were analyzed: 605 patients included in RCTs and 1,365 included in the cohorts. We compared patient and disease characteristics, knee pain, overall knee function, and health-related quality of life at baseline between the RCT and cohort groups using standardized differences, ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates, and graphical methods such as quantile–quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots. Results — Differences between RCT and the cohort were observed primarily in age (younger patients in the cohort; standardized difference: 0.32) and disease severity, with the RCT group having more severe symptoms (standardized difference: 0.38). While knee pain, overall knee function, and quality of life generally showed minimal differences between the 2 groups, it is noteworthy that the largest observed difference was in knee pain, where the cohort group scored 7 points worse (95% confidence interval 5–9, standardized difference: 0.29). Conclusion — Patients in RCTs were largely representative of those in cohort studies regarding baseline scores, though variations in age and disease severity were observed. Younger patients with less severe osteoarthritis were more common in the cohort; however, trial participants still appear to be broadly representative of the target population.
|
|
