Methodological management of end-of-life decision data in intensive care studies: A systematic review of 178 randomized control trials published in seven major journals

What do we know about experiencing end-of-life in burn intensive care units? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to review and synthesize the evidence on end-of-life in burn intensive care units.

METHODS

Systematic scoping review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews was used as a reporting guideline. Searches were performed in 3 databases, with no time restriction and up to September 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 16,287 documents were identified; 18 were selected for analysis and synthesis. Three key themes emerged: (i) characteristics of the end-of-life in burn intensive care units, including end-of-life decisions, decision-making processes, causes, and trajectories of death; (ii) symptom control at the end-of-life in burn intensive care units focusing on patients' comfort; and (iii) concepts, models, and designs of the care provided to burned patients at the end-of-life, mainly care approaches, provision of care, and palliative care.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

End-of-life care is a major step in the care provided to critically ill burned patients. Dying and death in burn intensive care units are often preceded by end-of-life decisions, namely forgoing treatment and do-not-attempt to resuscitate. Different dying trajectories were described, suggesting the possibility to develop further studies to identify triggers for palliative care referral. Symptom control was not described in detail. Palliative care was rarely involved in end-of-life care for these patients. This review highlights the need for early and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care in the trajectories of critically ill burned patients, leading to an improved perception of end-of-life in burn intensive care units. Further research is needed to study the best way to provide optimal end-of-life care and foster integrated palliative care in burn intensive care units.

Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane.

DATA EXTRACTION

For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.