Sedation protocols to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in the ICU: a Cochrane Systematic Review

AIMS: Assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. BACKGROUND: Sedation is a core component of critical care. Sub-optimal sedation management incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to poorer patient outcomes. DESIGN: Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LILACS, Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990-November 2013) and reference lists of articles were used. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation were included. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full-text reports. Potential risk of bias was assessed. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity were examined and the random-effects model used for meta-analysis where appropriate. Mean difference for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio for mortality, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated. RESULTS: Two eligible studies with 633 participants comparing protocol-directed sedation delivered by nurses vs. usual care were identified. There was no evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation or hospital mortality. There was statistically significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation as results from the two randomized controlled trials were conflicting.

A systematic evaluation of field-based screening methods for the assessment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based measures provide an accurate method to identify risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury; however, these methods are generally prohibitive to the wider community. Screening methods that can be completed in a field or clinical setting may be more applicable for wider community use. Examination of field-based screening methods for ACL injury risk can aid in identifying the most applicable method(s) for use in these settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare field-based screening methods for ACL injury risk to determine their efficacy of use in wider community settings. DATA SOURCES: An electronic database search was conducted on the SPORTDiscus™, MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL databases (January 1990-July 2015) using a combination of relevant keywords. A secondary search of the same databases, using relevant keywords from identified screening methods, was also undertaken. STUDY SELECTION: Studies identified as potentially relevant were independently examined by two reviewers for inclusion. Where consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted. Original research articles that examined screening methods for ACL injury risk that could be undertaken outside of a laboratory setting were included for review. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies. Included studies were categorized according to the screening method they examined. A description of each screening method, and data pertaining to the ability to prospectively identify ACL injuries, validity and reliability, recommendations for identifying 'at-risk' athletes, equipment and training required to complete screening, time taken to screen athletes, and applicability of the screening method across sports and athletes were extracted from relevant studies. RESULTS: Of 1077 citations from the initial search, a total of 25 articles were identified as potentially relevant, with 12 meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria. From the secondary search, eight further studies met all criteria, resulting in 20 studies being included for review. Five ACL-screening methods-the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS), Clinic-Based Algorithm, Observational Screening of Dynamic Knee Valgus (OSDKV), 2D-Cam Method, and Tuck Jump Assessment-were identified. There was limited evidence supporting the use of field-based screening methods in predicting ACL injuries across a range of populations. Differences relating to the equipment and time required to complete screening methods were identified. LIMITATIONS: Only screening methods for ACL injury risk were included for review. Field-based screening methods developed for lower-limb injury risk in general may also incorporate, and be useful in, screening for ACL injury risk. CONCLUSIONS: Limited studies were available relating to the OSDKV and 2D-Cam Method. The LESS showed predictive validity in identifying ACL injuries, however only in a youth athlete population. The LESS also appears practical for community-wide use due to the minimal equipment and set-up/analysis time required. The Clinic-Based Algorithm may have predictive value for ACL injury risk as it identifies athletes who exhibit high frontal plane knee loads during a landing task, but requires extensive additional equipment and time, which may limit its application to wider community settings.

K-Center: an approach on the multi-source identification of information diffusion

The global diffusion of epidemics, computer viruses, and rumors causes great damage to our society. It is critical to identify the diffusion sources and timely quarantine them. However, most methods proposed so far are unsuitable for diffusion with multiple sources because of the high computational cost and the complex spatiotemporal diffusion processes. In this paper, based on the knowledge of infected nodes and their connections, we propose a novel method to identify multiple diffusion sources, which can address three main issues in this area: 1) how many sources are there? 2) where did the diffusion emerge? and 3) when did the diffusion break out? We first derive an optimization formulation for multi-source identification problem. This is based on altering the original network into a new network concerning two key elements: 1) propagation probability and 2) the number of hops between nodes. Experiments demonstrate that the altered network can accurately reflect the complex diffusion processes with multiple sources. Second, we derive a fast method to optimize the formulation. It has been proved that the proposed method is convergent and the computational complexity is O(mn log α) , where α = α (m,n) is the slowly growing inverse-Ackermann function, n is the number of infected nodes, and m is the number of edges connecting them. Finally, we introduce an efficient algorithm to estimate the spreading time and the number of diffusion sources. To evaluate the proposed method, we compare the proposed method with many competing methods in various real-world network topologies. Our method shows significant advantages in the estimation of multiple sources and the prediction of spreading time.

Explaining the variation in the management of lifestyle risk factors in primary health care: a multilevel cross sectional study

Background

Despite evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to modify lifestyle behaviours in the primary health care (PHC) setting, assessment and intervention for these behaviours remains low in routine practice. Little is known about the relative importance of various determinants of practice.

This study aimed to examine the relative importance of provider characteristics and attitudes, patient characteristics and consultation factors in determining the rate of assessment and intervention for lifestyle risk factors in PHC.

Methods

A prospective audit of assessment and intervention for lifestyle risk factors was undertaken by PHC nurses and allied health providers (n = 57) for all patients seen (n = 732) over a two week period. Providers completed a survey to assess key attitudes related to addressing lifestyle issues. Multi-level logistic regression analysis of patient audit records was undertaken. Associations between variables from both data sources were examined, together with the variance explained by patient and consultation (level 1) and provider (level 2) factors.

Results

There was significant variance between providers in the assessment and intervention for lifestyle risk factors. The consultation type and reason for the visit were the most important in explaining the variation in assessment practices, however these factors along with patient and provider variables accounted for less than 20% of the variance. In contrast, multi-level models showed that provider factors were most important in explaining the variance in intervention practices, in particular, the location of the team in which providers worked (urban or rural) and provider perceptions of their effectiveness and accessibility of support services. After controlling for provider variables, patients' socio-economic status, the reason for the visit and providers' perceptions of the 'appropriateness' of addressing risk factors in the consultation were all significantly associated with providing optimal intervention. Together, measured patient consultation and provider variables accounted for most (80%) of the variation in intervention practices between providers.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the importance of provider factors such as beliefs and attitudes, team location and work context in understanding variations in the provision of lifestyle intervention in PHC. Further studies of this type are required to identify variables that improve the proportion of variance explained in assessment practices.