A Systematic Review of the Single-Item Burnout Question: Its Reliability Depends on Your Purpose.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance of burnout by the gold-standard Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is hindered by cost and length. The validity and benchmarking of the commonly recommended and used single-item burnout question (SIBOQ) are unknown. We sought to (1) derive an equation for predicting the gold standard MBI from the SIBOQ and (2) measure the correlation of the SIBOQ with the full MBI and its subscales. METHODS: We sought studies in PubMed along with citations by and to included studies. We included studies that either correlated the SIBOQ and the MBI or reported the rates of burnout measured by both instruments. Two reviewers extracted data and CLARITY risk of bias. We used generalized linear mixed regression to separately quantify the predictive (benchmarking) and explanatory (hot-spotting) capabilities of the SIBOQ. We created a regression equation for converting SIBOQ scores to MBI scores. We meta-analyzed correlation coefficients (r) for the SIBOQ and MBI subscales. For all analyses, we considered an r of 0.7 as acceptable reliability for group-level comparisons. RESULTS: We included 17 studies reporting 6788 respondents. All studies had a high risk of bias, as no study had a response rate over 75% and no study was able to examine non-responders. The correlations (r) of the SIBOQ with the overall MBI were explanatory r = 0.82 and predictive r = 0.56. Regarding MBI subscales, the correlations of the SIBOQ with emotional exhaustion were adequate with r = 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.74; I2 = 89%), and depersonalization was r = 0.44 (95% CI 0.34-0.52; I2 = 90%). However, in 8 of 15 comparisons, the r was less than 0.70. DISCUSSION: The SIBOQ's usually adequate explanatory abilities allow "hot-spotting" to identify subgroups with high or low burnout within a single, homogenous survey fielding. However, the predictive ability of the SIBOQ indicates insufficient reliability in comparing local results to external benchmarks.

Hospital workforce engagement, satisfaction, burnout and effects on patient mortality: Findings from the English national health service staff surveys.

Previous studies of healthcare organizations' workforces and their performance have focused on burnout and its impact on care. The aim of this research is to expand on this and examine the association of positive organizational states, engagement and recommendation of employer as a place to work, in comparison to burnout on Hospital performance. Methods: This was a panel study of the respondents to the 2012-2019 yearly Staff Surveys of the English National Health Service (NHS) hospital Trusts with hospital performance measured by the adjusted inpatient Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI). Results: In univariable regression, all three organizational states significantly and negatively correlated with SHMI, with recommendation and engagement showing a nonlinear effect. In multivariable analysis, all three states remained significant predictors of SHMI. Engagement and recommendation showed mutual correlation, with engagement being a more prevalent state than recommendation. Conclusion: Our study indicates that organizations could benefit from monitoring multiple workforce variables to preserve or enhance workforce well-being, while optimizing organizational performance. The surprising finding that higher burnout was associated with improved short-term performance requires further investigation, as does the finding of less frequent staff recommendation of work compared to staff engagement with their work.

The Effect of Fluid Initiation Timing on Sepsis Mortality: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines suggest the immediate initiation of crystalloid for sepsis-induced hypoperfusion but note that supporting evidence is low quality. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of timing of fluid initiation on mortality for adults with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: Two authors independently reviewed relevant articles and extracted study details from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and previous relevant systematic reviews from 1-1-2000 to 1-6-2022. Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245431) and bias assessed using CLARITY. STUDY SELECTION: A minimum of severe sepsis (Sepsis-2) or sepsis (Sepsis-3) for patients ≥18 years old. Fluid initiation timing ranging from prehospital to 120 min within sepsis onset defined as "early" initiation. DATA EXTRACTION: Included studies providing mortality-based odds ratios (or comparable) adjusting for confounders or prospective trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 1643 citations, five retrospective cohort studies were included (n = 20,209) with in-hospital mortality of 21.8%. A pooled analysis (odds ratio = OR [95% CI]) did not observe an impact on mortality for the early initiation of fluids among all patients, OR = 0.79 [0.62-1.02]; heterogeneity: I2 = 86% [70-94%], but when studies analyzed cases of hypotension where available, a survival benefit was observed, OR = 0.74 [0.61-0.90]. Initiation of fluids in two prehospital studies did not impact mortality, OR = 0.82 [0.27-2.43]. However, both prehospital cohorts observed benefit among hypotensive patients individually, although heterogenous results precluded significance when pooled, OR = 0.50 [0.21-1.18]. Three hospital-based studies with initiation stratified at 30, 100, and 120 min, observed survival benefit both individually and when pooled, OR = 0.78 [0.63-0.97]. No differences were observed between prehospital versus hospital subgroups. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports the guideline recommendations for early fluid initiation once sepsis is recognized, especially in cases of hypotension. Findings are limited by the small number, heterogeneity, and retrospective nature of available studies. Further retrospective investigations may be worthwhile as randomized studies on fluid initiation are unlikely.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Dalteparin for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To maintain living, interactive evidence (LIvE) on the benefits and harms of different treatment options in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). METHODS: We have used a novel LIvE synthesis framework to maintain this living, interactive systematic review since September 19, 2018. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for CAT are included in this analysis. Details of LIvE synthesis framework are available at the website https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com. RESULTS: The results are constantly updated as new information becomes available (https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com/CAT.html). The living, interactive systematic review currently includes 4 randomized controlled trials (N=2894). Direct comparisons show that DOACs significantly decrease recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events compared with dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86; I2, 25%) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.18; I2, 28%). Mixed treatment comparisons show that apixaban (OR, 0.41; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16 to 0.95) and rivaroxaban (OR, 0.58; 95% CrI, 0.37 to 0.90) significantly decrease VTE recurrent events compared with dalteparin. Edoxaban significantly increases major bleeding compared with dalteparin (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.04 to 3.16), and rivaroxaban significantly increases clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding compared with dalteparin and other DOACs. There are no significant differences between DOACs in terms of VTE recurrences and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: DOACs should be considered a standard of care for the treatment of CAT except in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Current evidence favors the use of apixaban for the treatment of CAT among other DOACs. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dth86).

In severe, uncontrolled asthma, tezepelumab reduced exacerbations and improved asthma control at 1 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Menzies-Gow A, Corren J, Bourdin A, et al. Tezepelumab in adults and adolescents with severe, uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1800-9. 33979488.

Saliva and nasopharyngeal samples have similar sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

SOURCE CITATION: Bastos ML, Perlman-Arrow S, Menzies D, Campbell JR. The sensitivity and costs of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection with saliva versus nasopharyngeal swabs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:501-10. 33428446.

In cancer-associated VTE, apixaban was noninferior to dalteparin for recurrence and did not increase major bleeding.

SOURCE CITATION: Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G, et al. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1599-607. 32223112.

Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT: a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening on lung cancer (LC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyze LDCT lung cancer screening trials. METHODS: We identified studies by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov , and reference lists from retrieved publications. We abstracted data on study design features, stage I LC diagnoses, LC and overall mortality, false positive results, harm from invasive diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and significant incidental findings. We assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We used random-effects models to calculate relative risks and assessed effect modulators with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. RESULTS: We identified 9 studies that enrolled 96,559 subjects. The risk of bias across studies was judged to be low. Overall, LDCT screening significantly increased the detection of stage I LC, RR = 2.93 (95% CI, 2.16-3.98), I2 = 19%, and reduced LC mortality, RR = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.93), I2 = 0%. The number needed to screen to prevent an LC death was 265. Women had a lower risk of LC death (RR = 0.69, 95% CI, 0.40-1.21) than men (RR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.66-1.13), p value for interaction = 0.11. LDCT screening did not reduce overall mortality, RR = 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-1.01), I2 = 0%. The pooled false positive rate was 8% (95% CI, 4-18); subjects with false positive results had < 1 in 1000 risk of major complications following invasive diagnostic procedures. The most valid estimates for overdiagnosis and significant incidental findings were 8.9% and 7.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION: LDCT screening significantly reduced LC mortality, though not overall mortality, with women appearing to benefit more than men. The estimated risks for false positive results, screening complications, overdiagnosis, and incidental findings were low. Long-term survival data were available only for North American and European studies limiting generalizability.

Early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock: A living systematic review.

Studies and meta-analyses conflict regarding the use of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for septic shock. We sought to clarify the conflict by performing a living systematic review and meta-regression. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity with meta-regression. We conformed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and qualified strength of evidence with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation profile. RESULTS: Overall, EGDT did not significantly reduce mortality compared with usual care (relative risk, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.08); however, heterogeneity was substantial (I2=64%; 95% confidence interval, 12%-85%). Illness severity did not correlate with mortality reduction; however, there were significant correlations with control rate mortality and the strategy employed by the control group. Benefit was confined to trials with a control mortality greater than 35%. Compared with monitoring of lactate clearance and central venous pressure, EGDT mortality was higher. CONCLUSION: The benefit of EGDT is evident in populations with high mortality, in line with reported global mortality rates. In settings with low mortality the recent trials challenge the need for 6-hour goals; however, most patients in these trials met 3-hour resuscitation goals as defined by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. In settings with higher mortality, EGDT or normalization of lactate/central venous pressure may be viable therapeutic options.

Screening Coverage Needed to Reduce Mortality from Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial because of conflicting results from the two major trials: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyze and meta-regress the available PSA screening trials. METHODS: We performed a living systematic review and meta-regression of the reduction in prostate cancer mortality as a function of the duration of screening provided in each trial. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Registry, and references lists from previous meta-analyses to identify randomized trials of PSA screening. We followed PRISMA guidelines and qualified strength of evidence with a GRADE Profile. RESULTS: We found 6 trials, but excluded one that also screened with trans-rectal ultrasound. We considered each ERSPC center as a separate trial. When pooling together all 11 trials we found no significant benefit from screening; however, the heterogeneity was 28.2% (95% CI: 0% to 65%). Heterogeneity was explained by variations in the duration of serial screening (I2 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 52%). When we analyzed the subgroup of trials that added more than 3 years of screening (range 3.2 to 3.8) we found a significant benefit for screening with risk ratio 0.78 (95% CI 0.65-0.94; I2 = 0%; 95% CI: 0% to 69%) and a number needed to invite for screening of 1000. We downgraded the quality of evidence to moderate due to our retrospective identification of subgroups and limited data on control group screening. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate duration of screening reduces mortality from prostate cancer. The benefit, while small, compares favorably with screening for other cancers. Our projections are limited by the moderate quality of evidence.