Effect of methylprednisolone on acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with a cardiopulmonary bypass pump : a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Perioperative corticosteroid use may reduce acute kidney injury. We sought to test whether methylprednisolone reduces the risk of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified substudy of a randomized controlled trial involving patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (2007-2014); patients were recruited from 79 centres in 18 countries. Eligibility criteria included a moderate-to-high risk of perioperative death based on a preoperative score of 6 or greater on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I. Patients (n = 7286) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous methylprednisolone (250 mg at anesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients, caregivers, data collectors and outcome adjudicators were unaware of the assigned intervention. The primary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in the serum creatinine concentration (from the preoperative value) of 0.3 mg/dL or greater (>= 26.5 mu mol/L) or 50% or greater in the 14-day period after surgery, or use of dialysis within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Acute kidney injury occurred in 1479/3647 patients (40.6%) in the methylprednisolone group and in 1426/3639 patients (39.2%) in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.11). Results were consistent across several definitions of acute kidney injury and in patients with preoperative chronic kidney disease. INTERPRETATION: Intraoperative corticosteroid use did not reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with a moderate-to-high risk of perioperative death who had cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Our results do not support the prophylactic use of steroids during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery

The revised Approved Instructional Resources score:An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources

BACKGROUND: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations.OBJECTIVES: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool.METHODS: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability.RESULTS: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95).CONCLUSIONS: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.</p

The Social Media Index as an Indicator of Quality for Emergency Medicine Blogs: A METRIQ Study

Study objective: Online educational resources such as blogs are increasingly used for education by emergency medicine clinicians. The Social Media Index was developed to quantify their relative impact. The Medical Education Translational Resources: Indicators of Quality (METRIQ) study was conducted in part to determine the association between the Social Media Index score and quality as measured by gestalt and previously derived quality instruments. Methods: Ten blogs were randomly selected from a list of emergency medicine and critical care Web sites. The 2 most recent clinically oriented blog posts published on these blogs were evaluated with gestalt, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (ALiEM AIR) score, and the METRIQ-8 score. Volunteer raters (including medical students, emergency medicine residents, and emergency medicine attending physicians) were identified with a multimodal recruitment methodology. The Social Media Index was calculated in February 2016, November 2016, April 2017, and December 2017. Pearson's correlations were calculated between the Social Media Index and the average rater gestalt, ALiEM AIR score, and METRIQ-8 score. Results: A total of 309 of 330 raters completed all ratings (93.6%). The Social Media Index correlated moderately to strongly with the mean rater gestalt ratings (range 0.69 to 0.76) and moderately with the mean rater ALiEM AIR score (range 0.55 to 0.61) and METRIQ-8 score (range 0.53 to 0.57) during the month of the blog post's selection and for 2 years after. Conclusion: The Social Media Index's correlation with multiple quality evaluation instruments over time supports the hypothesis that it is associated with overall Web site quality. It can play a role in guiding individuals to high-quality resources that can be reviewed with critical appraisal techniques