We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pneumonia is the leading cause of death of children. Diagnostic tools include chest radiography, but guidelines do not currently recommend the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) as a diagnostic method. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for childhood pneumonia. METHODS:We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Global Health, World Health Organization-Libraries, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature of studies comparing LUS diagnostic accuracy against a reference standard. We used a combination of controlled key words for age ,18 years, pneumonia, and ultrasound. We identified 1475 studies and selected 15 (1%) for further review. Eight studies (765 children) were retrieved for analysis, of which 6 (75%) were conducted in the general pediatric population and 2 (25%) in neonates. Eligible studies provided information to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Heterogeneity was assessed by using Q and I 2 statistics.RESULTS: Five studies (63%) reported using highly skilled sonographers. Overall methodologic quality was high, but heterogeneity was observed across studies. LUS had a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-97%) and specificity of 93% (95% CI: 90%-96%), and positive and negative likelihood ratios were 15.3 (95% CI: 6.6-35.3) and 0.06 (95% CI: 0.03-0.11), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.98. Limitations included the following: most studies included in our analysis had a low number of patients, and the number of eligible studies was also small. Dr Pereda conceptualized and designed the study, reviewed all abstracts and selected articles to be included in the meta-analysis, was responsible for data collection, and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Chavez conceptualized and designed the study, reviewed all abstracts and selected articles to be included in the meta-analysis, was responsible for data collection, led the analysis, and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Hooper-Miele participated in analysis and interpretation of results, critically revised ultrasound methods used by selected studies, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Drs Gilman, Steinhoff, Ellington, and Tielsch participated in the analysis and interpretation of results and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Ms Gross and Ms Price conducted the literature search and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Checkley conceptualized and designed the study, contributed equally to the analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and had ultimate oversight over the study conduct, analysis plan, and writing of the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.www.pediatrics.org/cgi
BackgroundGuidelines do not currently recommend the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) as an alternative to chest X-ray (CXR) or chest computerized tomography (CT) scan for the diagnosis of pneumonia. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize existing evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for pneumonia in adults.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of LUS against a referent CXR or chest CT scan and/or clinical criteria for pneumonia in adults aged ≥18 years. Eligible studies were required to have a CXR and/or chest CT scan at the time of evaluation. We manually extracted descriptive and quantitative information from eligible studies, and calculated pooled sensitivity and specificity using the Mantel-Haenszel method and pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) using the DerSimonian-Laird method. We assessed for heterogeneity using the Q and I2 statistics.ResultsOur initial search strategy yielded 2726 articles, of which 45 (1.7%) were manually selected for review and 10 (0.4%) were eligible for analyses. These 10 studies provided a combined sample size of 1172 participants. Six studies enrolled adult patients who were either hospitalized or admitted to Emergency Departments with suspicion of pneumonia and 4 studies enrolled critically-ill adult patients. LUS was performed by highly-skilled sonographers in seven studies, by trained physicians in two, and one did not mention level of training. All studies were conducted in high-income settings. LUS took a maximum of 13 minutes to conduct. Nine studies used a 3.5-5 MHz micro-convex transducer and one used a 5–9 MHz convex probe. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pneumonia using LUS were 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) and 96% (94%-97%), respectively; pooled positive and negative LRs were 16.8 (7.7-37.0) and 0.07 (0.05-0.10), respectively; and, the area-under-the-ROC curve was 0.99 (0.98-0.99).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis supports that LUS, when conducted by highly-skilled sonographers, performs well for the diagnosis of pneumonia. General practitioners and Emergency Medicine physicians should be encouraged to learn LUS since it appears to be an established diagnostic tool in the hands of experienced physicians.
Objective Social isolation and loneliness are associated with increased mortality and higher health care spending in older adults. Hearing loss is a common condition in older adults and impairs communication and social interactions. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the literature exploring the association between hearing loss and social isolation and/or loneliness. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Review Methods Articles were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer for adjudication. English-language studies of older adults with hearing loss that used a validated measure of social isolation or loneliness were included. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies included in the review. Results Of the 2495 identified studies, 14 were included in the review. Most of the studies (12/14) were cross-sectional. Despite the heterogeneity of assessment methods for hearing status (self-report or objective audiometry), loneliness, and social isolation, most multivariable-adjusted studies found that hearing loss was associated with higher risk of loneliness and social isolation. Several studies found an effect modification of gender such that among women, hearing loss was more strongly associated with loneliness and social isolation than among men. Conclusions Our findings that hearing loss is associated with loneliness and social isolation have important implications for the cognitive and psychosocial health of older adults. Future studies should investigate whether treating hearing loss can decrease loneliness and social isolation in older adults.
Laryngeal injury from intubation is common in the ICU setting. Guidelines for laryngeal assessment and postextubation surveillance do not exist. A systematic approach to more robust investigations could increase knowledge of the association between particular injuries and corresponding functional impairments, improving understanding of both time course and prognosis for resolution of injury. Our findings identify targets for future research and highlight the long-known, but understudied, clinical outcomes from endotracheal intubation with mechanical ventilation in ICU.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.