62 research outputs found

    Prediction Scores Do Not Correlate with Clinically Adjudicated Categories of Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients

    Get PDF
    Copyright © 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.BACKGROUND: Prediction scores for pretest probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) validated in outpatient settings are occasionally used in the intensive care unit (ICU).OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correlation of Geneva and Wells scores with adjudicated categories of PE in ICU patients.METHODS: In a randomized trial of thromboprophylaxis, patients with suspected PE were adjudicated as possible, probable or definite PE. Data were then retrospectively abstracted for the Geneva Diagnostic PE score, Wells, Modified Wells and Simplified Wells Diagnostic scores. The chance-corrected agreement between adjudicated categories and each score was calculated. ANOVA was used to compare values across the three adjudicated PE categories.RESULTS: Among 70 patients with suspected PE, agreement was poor between adjudicated categories and Geneva pretest probabilities (kappa 0.01 [95% CI −0.0643 to 0.0941]) or Wells pretest probabilities (kappa −0.03 [95% CI −0.1462 to 0.0914]). Among four possible, 16 probable and 50 definite PEs, there were no significant differences in Geneva scores (possible = 4.0, probable = 4.7, definite = 4.5; P=0.90), Wells scores (possible = 2.8, probable = 4.9, definite = 4.1; P=0.37), Modified Wells (possible = 2.0, probable = 3.4, definite = 2.9; P=0.34) or Simplified Wells (possible = 1.8, probable = 2.8, definite = 2.4; P=0.30).CONCLUSIONS: Pretest probability scores developed outside the ICU do not correlate with adjudicated PE categories in critically ill patients. Research is needed to develop prediction scores for this population

    Evaluation of an Internal Review Process for Grants And Manuscripts in the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

    No full text
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: All grants and manuscripts bearing the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group name are submitted for internal peer review before submission. The authors sought to formally evaluate authors’ and reviewers’ perceptions of this process

    Evaluation of an Internal Review Process for Grants And Manuscripts in the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

    No full text
    RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: All grants and manuscripts bearing the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group name are submitted for internal peer review before submission. The authors sought to formally evaluate authors’ and reviewers’ perceptions of this process.METHODS: The authors developed, tested and administered two electronic nine-item questionnaires for authors and two electronic 13-item questionnaires for reviewers. Likert scale, multiple choice and free-text responses were used.RESULTS: Twenty-one of 29 (72%) grant authors and 16 of 22 (73%) manuscript authors responded. Most author respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with the turnaround time, quality of the review and the review process. Two-thirds of grant (13 of 20 [65%]) and manuscript authors (11 of 16 [69%]) reported one or more successful submissions after review. Changes made to grants based on reviews were predominantly editorial and involved the background, rationale, significance/relevance and the methods/protocol sections. Twenty-one of 47 (45%) grant reviewers and 32 of 44 (73%) manuscript reviewers responded. Most reviewer respondents reported a good to excellent overall impression of the review process, good fit between their expertise and interests and the grants reviewed, and ample time to review. Although most respondents agreed with the current nonblinded review process, more grant than manuscript reviewers preferred a structured review format.CONCLUSIONS: The authors report a highly favourable evaluation of an existing internal review process. The present evaluation has assisted in understanding and improving the current internal review process.Peer Reviewe
    • …
    corecore