Effect of Continuous Infusion of Hypertonic Saline vs Standard Care on 6-Month Neurological Outcomes in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury

International audienceImportance: Fluid therapy is an important component of care for patients with traumatic brain injury, but whether it modulates clinical outcomes remains unclear.Objective: To determine whether continuous infusion of hypertonic saline solution improves neurological outcome at 6 months in patients with traumatic brain injury.Design, setting, and participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 9 intensive care units in France, including 370 patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury who were recruited from October 2017 to August 2019. Follow-up was completed in February 2020.Interventions: Adult patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were randomly assigned to receive continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline solution plus standard care (n = 185) or standard care alone (controls; n = 185). The 20% hypertonic saline solution was administered for 48 hours or longer if patients remained at risk of intracranial hypertension.Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) score (range, 1-8, with lower scores indicating worse functional outcome) at 6 months, obtained centrally by blinded assessors and analyzed with ordinal logistic regression adjusted for prespecified prognostic factors (with a common odds ratio [OR] >1.0 favoring intervention). There were 12 secondary outcomes measured at multiple time points, including development of intracranial hypertension and 6-month mortality.Results: Among 370 patients who were randomized (median age, 44 [interquartile range, 27-59] years; 77 [20.2%] women), 359 (97%) completed the trial. The adjusted common OR for the GOS-E score at 6 months was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47; P = .92). Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 10 were not significantly different. Intracranial hypertension developed in 62 (33.7%) patients in the intervention group and 66 (36.3%) patients in the control group (absolute difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -12.3% to 7.2%]; OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.51-1.26]). There was no significant difference in 6-month mortality (29 [15.9%] in the intervention group vs 37 [20.8%] in the control group; absolute difference, -4.9% [95% CI, -12.8% to 3.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.48-1.28]).Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury, treatment with continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline compared with standard care did not result in a significantly better neurological status at 6 months. However, confidence intervals for the findings were wide, and the study may have had limited power to detect a clinically important difference

eOSCE stations live versus remote evaluation and scores variability

International audienceAbstract Background Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are known to be a fair evaluation method. These recent years, the use of online OSCEs (eOSCEs) has spread. This study aimed to compare remote versus live evaluation and assess the factors associated with score variability during eOSCEs. Methods We conducted large-scale eOSCEs at the medical school of the Université de Paris Cité in June 2021 and recorded all the students’ performances, allowing a second evaluation. To assess the agreement in our context of multiple raters and students, we fitted a linear mixed model with student and rater as random effects and the score as an explained variable. Results One hundred seventy observations were analyzed for the first station after quality control. We retained 192 and 110 observations for the statistical analysis of the two other stations. The median score and interquartile range were 60 out of 100 (IQR 50–70), 60 out of 100 (IQR 54–70), and 53 out of 100 (IQR 45–62) for the three stations. The score variance proportions explained by the rater (ICC rater) were 23.0, 16.8, and 32.8%, respectively. Of the 31 raters, 18 (58%) were male. Scores did not differ significantly according to the gender of the rater ( p = 0.96, 0.10, and 0.26, respectively). The two evaluations showed no systematic difference in scores ( p = 0.92, 0.053, and 0.38, respectively). Conclusion Our study suggests that remote evaluation is as reliable as live evaluation for eOSCEs

eOSCE stations live versus remote evaluation and scores variability

International audienceAbstract Background Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are known to be a fair evaluation method. These recent years, the use of online OSCEs (eOSCEs) has spread. This study aimed to compare remote versus live evaluation and assess the factors associated with score variability during eOSCEs. Methods We conducted large-scale eOSCEs at the medical school of the Université de Paris Cité in June 2021 and recorded all the students’ performances, allowing a second evaluation. To assess the agreement in our context of multiple raters and students, we fitted a linear mixed model with student and rater as random effects and the score as an explained variable. Results One hundred seventy observations were analyzed for the first station after quality control. We retained 192 and 110 observations for the statistical analysis of the two other stations. The median score and interquartile range were 60 out of 100 (IQR 50–70), 60 out of 100 (IQR 54–70), and 53 out of 100 (IQR 45–62) for the three stations. The score variance proportions explained by the rater (ICC rater) were 23.0, 16.8, and 32.8%, respectively. Of the 31 raters, 18 (58%) were male. Scores did not differ significantly according to the gender of the rater ( p = 0.96, 0.10, and 0.26, respectively). The two evaluations showed no systematic difference in scores ( p = 0.92, 0.053, and 0.38, respectively). Conclusion Our study suggests that remote evaluation is as reliable as live evaluation for eOSCEs