↓ Skip to main content

Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0243-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphane Gaudry, Jonathan Messika, Jean-Damien Ricard, Sylvie Guillo, Blandine Pasquet, Emeline Dubief, Tanissia Boukertouta, Didier Dreyfuss, Florence Tubach

Abstract

Intensivists' clinical decision making pursues two main goals for patients: to decrease mortality and to improve quality of life and functional status in survivors. Patient-important outcomes are gaining wide acceptance in most fields of clinical research. We sought to systematically review how well patient-important outcomes are reported in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critically ill patients. Literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials indexed from January to December 2013. Articles were eligible if they reported an RCT involving critically ill adult patients. We excluded phase II, pilot and physiological crossover studies. We assessed study characteristics. All primary and secondary outcomes were collected, described and classified using six categories of outcomes including patient-important outcomes (involving mortality at any time on the one hand and quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes assessed after ICU discharge on the other). Of the 716 articles retrieved in 2013, 112 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Most common topics were mechanical ventilation (27%), sepsis (19%) and nutrition (17%). Among the 112 primary outcomes, 27 (24%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 21/27) but only six (5%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (functional disability = 4; quality of life = 2). Among the 598 secondary outcomes, 133 (22%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 92/133) but only 41 (7%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (quality of life = 20, functional disability = 14; neurological/cognitive performance = 5; handicap = 1; post-traumatic stress = 1). Seventy-three RCTs (65%) reported at least one patient-important outcome but only 11 (10%) reported at least one patient-important outcome besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge. Patient-important outcomes are rarely primary outcomes in RCTs in critically ill patients published in 2013. Among them, mortality accounted for the majority. We promote the use of patient-important outcomes in critical care trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Other 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 23 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2018.
All research outputs
#951,304
of 21,016,241 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#97
of 956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,559
of 276,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,016,241 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.