Survey research is an important form of scientific inquiry 1 that merits rigorous design and analysis. 2 The aim of a survey is to gather reliable and unbiased data from a representative sample of respondents.3 Increasingly, investigators administer questionnaires to clinicians about their knowledge, attitudes and practice 2,4,5 to generate or refine research questions and to evaluate the impact of clinical research on practice. Questionnaires can be descriptive (reporting factual data) or explanatory (drawing inferences between constructs or concepts) and can explore several constructs at a time. Questionnaires can be informal, conducted as preparatory work for future studies, or formal, with specific objectives and outcomes.Rigorous questionnaires can be challenging and labour-intensive to develop, test and administer without the help of a systematic approach. 5 In this article, we outline steps to design, develop, test and administer valid questionnaires with minimal bias and optimal response rates. We focus on selfadministered postal and electronic surveys of clinicians that are amenable to quantitative analysis. We highlight differences between postal and electronic administration of surveys and review strategies that enhance response rates and reporting transparency. Although intended to assist in the conduct of rigorous self-administered surveys, our article may also help clinicians in the appraisal of published surveys.

Objectives To determine whether informed consent introduces selection bias in prospective observational studies using data from medical records, and consent rates for such studies. Design Systematic review. Data sources Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2008, reference lists from pertinent articles, and searches of electronic citations. Study selection Prospective observational studies reporting characteristics of participants and nonparticipants approached for informed consent to use their medical records. Studies were selected independently in duplicate; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data extraction Age, sex, race, education, income, or health status of participants and non-participants, the participation rate in each study, and susceptibility of these calculations to threats of selection and reporting bias. Results Of 1650 citations 17 unique studies met inclusion criteria and had analysable data. Across all outcomes there were differences between participants and nonparticipants; however, there was a lack of consistency in the direction and the magnitude of effect. Of 161 604 eligible patients, 66.9% consented to use of data from their medical records. Conclusions Significant differences between participants and non-participants may threaten the validity of results from observational studies that require consent for use of data from medical records. To ensure that legislation on privacy does not unduly bias observational studies using medical records, thoughtful decision making by research ethics boards on the need for mandatory consent is necessary.

IntroductionEvidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required to guide treatment of critically ill children, but the number of RCTs available is limited and the publications are often difficult to find. The objectives of this review were to systematically identify RCTs in pediatric critical care and describe their methods and reporting.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL (from inception to April 16, 2013) and reference lists of included RCTs and relevant systematic reviews. We included published RCTs administering any intervention to children in a pediatric ICU. We excluded trials conducted in neonatal ICUs, those enrolling exclusively preterm infants, and individual patient crossover trials. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe included 248 RCTs: 45 (18%) were multicentered and 14 (6%) were multinational. Trials most frequently enrolled both medical and surgical patients (43%) but postoperative cardiac surgery was the single largest population studied (19%). The most frequently evaluated types of intervention were medications (63%), devices (11%) and nutrition (8%). Laboratory or physiological measurements were the most frequent type of primary outcomes (18%). Half of these trials (50%) reported blinding. Of the 107 (43%) trials that reported an a priori sample size, 34 (32%) were stopped early. The median number of children randomized per trial was 49 and ranged from 6 to 4,947. The frequency of RCT publications increased at a mean rate of 0.7 RCTs per year (P<0.001) from 1 to 20 trials per year.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified the available RCTs in pediatric critical care and made them accessible to clinicians and researchers (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca). Most focused on medications and intermediate or surrogate outcomes, were single-centered and were conducted in North America and Western Europe. The results of this review underscore the need for trials with rigorous methodology, appropriate outcome measures, and improved quality of reporting to ensure that high quality evidence exists to support clinical decision-making in this vulnerable population.

No abstract

BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of clonidine as a sedative in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry. We identified RCTs that compared clonidine to any non-clonidine regimen in critically ill patients, excluding neonates, requiring mechanical ventilation. The GRADE method was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe included eight RCTs (n = 642 patients). In seven of the trials clonidine was used for adjunctive rather than stand-alone sedation. There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) 0.05 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.65 to 0.75, I 2 = 86%, moderate certainty), ICU mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.90, I 2 = 0%, low certainty), or ICU length of stay (MD 0.04 days, 95% CI = -0.46 to 0.53, I 2 = 16%, moderate certainty), with clonidine. There was a significant reduction in the total dose of narcotics (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.02, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty) with clonidine use. Clonidine was associated with increased incidence of clinically significant hypotension (RR 3.11, 95% CI = 1.64 to 5.87, I 2 = 0%, moderate certainty).ConclusionsUntil further RCTs are performed, data remains insufficient to support the routine use of clonidine as a sedative in the mechanically ventilated population. Clonidine may act as a narcotic-sparing agent, albeit with an increased risk of clinically significant hypotension.