Conectar
Bronchiolitis is the most common viral lower respiratory tract infection in children under 2 years of age. Respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in this patient population with limited understanding of the patients most likely to benefit and considerable practice variability of use. This study aims to understand the factors associated with failure of HFNC support among patients with bronchiolitis and to describe the current practice variations of HFNC use in patients with bronchiolitis in Canadian hospitals including fluid management and parameters to initiate, escalate and discontinue HFNC support.
This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study including hospitalised patients aged 0–24 months with bronchiolitis requiring support with HFNC between January 2017 and December 2021. Clinical data will be collected from patient medical records from Canadian hospitals (n=12), including academic and community centres. HFNC failure will be defined as the need for escalation to non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Factors associated with HFNC failure will be analysed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe practice variations of HFNC utilisation and management.
Approval from the Research Ethics Boards (REBs) has been obtained for each participating study site prior to onset of data collection including Clinical Trials Ontario for all Ontario hospital sites and REBs from British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Montreal Children’s Hospital and CHU Sainte-Justine. Study results will be disseminated through presentation at national/international conferences and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals.
Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.
FreshRSS 