Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery (i.e. within the intensive care unit (ICU) and following ICU and hospital discharge): an overview of systematic reviews

Background
Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments, which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness. Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit, following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge. Multiple systematic reviews have been published appraising the expanding evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions, although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality. We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery.

Methods/design
This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of adult patients, admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery. Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale, study types, populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and quality appraisal method. Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function. Quality of reporting and methodological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool.

Discussion
We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic reviews will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery.

Evidence-based practice: the relevance of systematic reviews.

Aim:
To demonstrate how systematic reviews provide robust evidence to inform clinical decision making in practice.

Background
Systematic reviews collate findings from a number of research studies in order to provide a comprehensive and reliable summary of the best available evidence. The use of systematic reviews to inform practice based decisions has increased as a result of the overwhelming amount of research literature available, poor quality of research evidence and the need to ensure practice is based upon the best available evidence. Systematic reviews are an efficient way of coping with large volumes of data to answer focused research questions. They differ from traditional literature reviews as they adhere to an explicit scientific process. The use of explicit and rigorous methods to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant studies minimises bias and provides a reliable basis for decision making. As a result systematic reviews provide clear evidence on the effectiveness of a healthcare intervention to inform policy and decision making across healthcare systems. An example of how the findings from systematic reviews can provide reliable evidence to inform healthcare decisions will be provided in this presentation1. This will demonstrate how focused clinical questions can be answered by systematic reviews and translated into practice.

Reference:
1. McGaughey J, Alderdice F, Fowler R, Kapila A, Moutray M. (2007) Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of Intensive Care admission admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards (REVIEW). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. art no CD005529

Regular medication reviews for children and young people with ADHD

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (2008) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) recommend a full clinical and psychological assessment by an appropriately trained clinician; this should include a detailed developmental and psychiatric history. Stimulant medications, which are Schedule II controlled drugs, are the most commonly prescribed medicines in the UK and across the world for the management of ADHD. Children and young people with a diagnosis of ADHD receiving these stimulant medications are required to attend regular review appointments with a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist or specialist nurse under shared care guidelines with general practices, and it has long been recognized that appropriately educated nurses can assist in the management of ADHD. Owing to the pharmacological action of the stimulant medication on neurotransmission, there is potential for misuse and dependence. A growing body of evidence suggests that adolescents with ADHD can become involved in drug diversion and that the topic should be explored during assessment. The level of misuse of prescribed stimulants is increasing, and adolescents and young people with ADHD may misuse to enhance cognitive function for academic purposes. The following scenario highlights some of the challenges and opportunities for independent nurse prescribers working in child and adolescent mental health services.

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult patients during critical illness: an overview of systematic reviews

Background Physical rehabilitation interventions aim to ameliorate the effects of critical illness-associated muscle dysfunction in survivors. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) evaluating the effect of these interventions across the continuum of recovery.

Methods Six electronic databases (Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, DARE, Medline, Embase, and Cinahl) were searched. Two review authors independently screened articles for eligibility and conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Reporting quality was assessed and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach applied to summarise overall quality of evidence.

Results Five eligible SR were included in this overview, of which three included meta-analyses. Reporting quality of the reviews was judged as medium to high. Two reviews reported moderate-to-high quality evidence of the beneficial effects of physical therapy commencing during intensive care unit (ICU) admission in improving critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy, quality of life, mortality and healthcare utilisation. These interventions included early mobilisation, cycle ergometry and electrical muscle stimulation. Two reviews reported very low to low quality evidence of the beneficial effects of electrical muscle stimulation delivered in the ICU for improving muscle strength, muscle structure and critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy. One review reported that due to a lack of good quality randomised controlled trials and inconsistency in measuring outcomes, there was insufficient evidence to support beneficial effects from physical rehabilitation delivered post-ICU discharge.

Conclusions Patients derive short-term benefits from physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission. Further robust trials of electrical muscle stimulation in the ICU and rehabilitation delivered following ICU discharge are needed to determine the long-term impact on patient care. This overview provides recommendations for design of future interventional trials and SR.

Where and how to find data on safety: what do systematic reviews of complementary therapies tell us?

Background: Successfully identifying relevant data for systematic reviews with a focus on safety may require retrieving information from a wider range of sources than for ‘effectiveness’ systematic reviews. Searching for safety data continues to prove a major challenge. Objectives: To examine search methods used in systematic reviews of safety and to investigate indexing. Methods: Systematic reviews focusing on safety of complementary therapies and related interventions were retrieved from comprehensive searches of major databases. Data was extracted on search strategies, sources used and indexing in major databases. Safety related search terms were compared against index terms available on major databases. Data extraction by one researcher using a pre-prepared template was checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Results: Screening of 2563 records resulted in 88 systematic reviews being identified. Information sources used varied with the type of intervention being addressed. Comparison of search terms with available index terms revealed additional potentially relevant terms that could be used in constructing search strategies. Seventy-nine reviews were indexed on PubMed, 84 on EMBASE, 21 on CINAHL, 15 on AMED, 6 on PsycINFO, 2 on BNI and HMIC. The mean number of generic safety-related indexing terms on PubMed records was 2.6. For EMBASE the mean number was 4.8 with at least 61 unique terms being employed. Most frequently used indexing terms and subheadings were adverse effects, side effects, drug interactions and herb-drug interactions. Use of terms specifically referring to safety varied across databases. Conclusions: Investigation of search methods revealed the range of information sources used, a list of which may prove a valuable resource for those planning to conduct systematic reviews of safety. The findings also indicated that there is potential to improve safety-related search strategies. Finally, an insight is provided into indexing of and most effective terms for finding safety studies on major databases.

Effect of drug utilization reviews on the quality of in-hospital prescribing: a quasi-experimental study

Affiliation: Louise Potvin: Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire en santé, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal