Department of Pediatrics, Section of Critical Care Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Crit Care Med. 2020 Dec;48(12):e1313-e1321. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004595.
Assessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes.
Scoping review.
We queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family).
Manuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness.
None.
Of 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments).
A comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.
评估儿科危重症患儿的结局对于评估实践和改善患儿及其家庭的康复至关重要。我们进行了文献范围综述,以确定以前用于评估这些结局的领域和工具。
范围综述。
我们在 PubMed、EMBASE、PsycINFO、护理学和联合健康文献累积索引以及 Cochrane 对照试验注册中心检索了 1970 年至 2017 年间发表的评估儿科重症监护幸存者或其家庭的研究。我们使用与儿科危重病和结局领域相关的关键词来确定文章。如果大多数患者年龄大于 18 岁或小于 1 个月,死亡率是唯一的结局,或者仅报告仪器心理测量学或程序结局,则排除这些文章。我们使用双重审查进行文章选择和数据提取,并按领域(整体健康、情绪、身体、认知、健康相关生活质量、社会、家庭)对结局进行分类。
评估儿科危重病结局的论文。
无。
在 60349 条引文中,有 407 篇文章符合纳入标准;87%的文章发表于 2000 年以后。研究设计包括观察性研究(85%)、干预性研究(7%)、定性研究(5%)和混合方法研究(3%)。最常评估的人群为创伤性脑损伤(n=96)、普通儿科危重症(n=87)和先天性心脏病(n=72)。有 74 项研究评估了家庭成员(18%)。研究使用了中位数为 2 种工具(四分位距 1-4 种工具),评估了中位数为 2 个领域(四分位距 2-3 个领域)。社会(n=223)、认知(n=183)和整体健康(n=161)领域是最常研究的领域。在各项研究中,共使用了 366 种独特的工具,最常用的是韦氏和格拉斯哥结局量表。使用中位数为 77 种工具(四分位距 39-87 种工具)评估了各个领域。
儿科危重病患儿结局的全面、可推广的理解受到方法学、人群、领域和工具的异质性的限制。制定评估标准可能有助于更好地了解出院后结局,并支持儿科危重病后的干预措施的开发。