Indications, Clinical Impact, and Complications of Critical Care Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Critical care transesophageal echocardiography (ccTEE) is an increasingly popular tool used by intensivists to characterize and manage hemodynamics at the bedside. Its usage appears to be driven by expanded diagnostic scope as well as the limitations of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) - lack of acoustic windows, patient positioning, and competing clinical interests (eg, the need to perform chest compressions). The objectives of this scoping review were to determine the indications, clinical impact, and complications of ccTEE. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and six major conferences were searched without a time or language restriction on March 31st, 2021. Studies were included if they assessed TEE performed for adult critically ill patients by intensivists, emergency physicians, or anesthesiologists. Intraoperative or post-cardiac surgical TEE studies were excluded. Study demographics, indication for TEE, main results, and complications were extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: Of the 4403 abstracts screened, 289 studies underwent full-text review, with 108 studies (6739 patients) included. Most studies were retrospective (66%), performed in academic centers (84%), in the intensive care unit (73%), and were observational (55%). The most common indications for ccTEE were hemodynamic instability, trauma, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, and procedural guidance. Across multiple indications, ccTEE was reported to change the diagnosis in 52% to 78% of patients and change management in 32% to79% patients. During cardiac arrest, ccTEE identified the cause of arrest in 25% to 35% of cases. Complications of ccTEE included two cases of significant gastrointestinal bleeding requiring intervention, but no other major complications (death or esophageal perforation) reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ccTEE has been described for the diagnosis and management of a broad range of clinical problems. Overall, ccTEE was commonly reported to offer additional diagnostic yield beyond TTE with a low observed complication rate. Additional high quality ccTEE studies will permit stronger conclusions and a more precise understanding of the trends observed in this scoping review.

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals.

BACKGROUND: To compare the frequency of "spin" in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals with the frequency a previously assessed series of reviews. METHODS: Medline was searched from January 2010 to January 2019. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies were included if they reported a meta-analysis and were published in a journal with an impact factor >5. Two investigators independently scored each included systematic review for positivity of conclusions and for actual and potential overinterpretation practices. RESULTS: Of 137 included systematic reviews, actual overinterpretation was present in ≥1 form in the abstract in 63 (46%) and in the full-text report in 52 (38%); 108 (79%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation. Compared with the previously assessed series (reviews published 2015-2016), reviews in this series were less likely to contain ≥1 form of actual overinterpretation in the abstract and full-text report or ≥1 form of potential overinterpretation (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The significance of these comparisons did not persist for actual overinterpretation in sensitivity analysis in which Cochrane systematic reviews were removed. Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were less likely to contain actual overinterpretation in the abstract or the full-text report than reviews in other high-impact journals (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals are less likely to contain overinterpretation or spin. This difference is largely due to the reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which contain spin less often than reviews published in other high-impact journals.

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors.

OBJECTIVE: Although the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research into practice and to performing unbiased systematic reviews. This study assesses POCUS investigator and journal editor attitudes towards barriers to adhering to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015 guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Two separate surveys using a 5-point Likert scale were sent to POCUS study investigators and journal editors to assess for knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to the complete reporting of POCUS research. Respondents were identified based on a previous study assessing STARD 2015 adherence for POCUS studies published in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and critical care journals. Responses were anonymously linked to STARD 2015 adherence data from the previous study. Written responses were thematically grouped into the following categories: knowledge, attitude and behavioural barriers to quality reporting, or other. Likert response items are reported as median with IQRs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the median Likert score for the investigator and editor surveys assessing knowledge, attitude and behavioural beliefs about barriers to adhering to the STARD 2015 guidelines. RESULTS: The investigator survey response rate was 18/69 (26%) and the editor response rate was 5/21 (24%). Most investigator respondents were emergency medicine practitioners (13/21, 62%). Two-thirds of investigators were aware of the STARD 2015 guidelines (12/18, 67%) and overall agreed that incomplete reporting limits generalisability and the ability to detect risk of bias (median 4 (4, 5)). Investigators felt that the STARD 2015 guidelines were useful, easy to find and easy to use (median 4 (4, 4.25); median 4 (4, 4.25) and median 4 (3, 4), respectively). There was a shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for ensuring complete research reporting (median 4 (3, 4) and median 4 (3.75, 4), respectively). Three of 18 authors (17%) felt that the English publication language of STARD 2015 was a barrier to adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Although investigators and editors recognise the importance of completely reported research, reporting quality is still a core issue for POCUS research. The shared opinion held by investigators and editors that the peer review process be primarily responsible for reporting quality is potentially problematic; we view completely reported research as an integral part of the research process that investigators are responsible for, with the peer review process serving as another additional layer of quality control. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals, auditing reporting guideline adherence during the peer review process and translation of STARD 2015 guidelines into additional languages may improve reporting completeness for the acute POCUS literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework Registry (https://osf.io/5pzxs/).

Blinding practices during acute point-of-care ultrasound research: the BLIND-US meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) diagnostic accuracy research has significant variation in blinding practices. This study characterises the blinding practices during acute POCUS research to determine whether research methodology adequately reflects POCUS use in routine clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A search for POCUS diagnostic accuracy studies published in Emergency Medicine, Anaesthesia and Critical Care journals from January 2016 to January 2020 was performed. Studies were included if they were primary diagnostic accuracy studies. The study year, journal impact factor, population, hospital area, body region, study design, blinding of the POCUS interpreter to clinical information, whether the person performing the POCUS scan was the same person interpreting the scan, and whether the study reported incremental diagnostic yield were extracted in duplicate by two authors. Descriptive statistics were provided and prespecified subgroup analysis was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of studies that blinded the POCUS interpreter to at least some part of the clinical information. Secondary outcomes included whether the person performing the POCUS scan was the same person interpreting it and whether the study reported incremental diagnostic yield. RESULTS: 520 abstracts were screened with 97 studies included. The POCUS interpreter was blinded to clinical information in 37 studies (38.1%), not blinded in 34 studies (35.1%) and not reported in 26 studies (26.8%). The POCUS interpreter was the same person obtaining the images in 72 studies (74.2%), different in 14 studies (14.4%) and not reported in 11 studies (11.3%). Only four studies (4.1%) reported incremental diagnostic yield for POCUS. Inter-rater reliability was moderate (k=0.64). Subgroup analysis based on impact factor, body region, hospital area, patient population and study design did not show significant differences after completing pairwise comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Although blinding the POCUS interpreter to clinical information may be done in a perceived attempt to limit bias, this may result in accuracy estimates that do not reflect routine clinical practice. Similarly, having a different clinician perform and interpret the POCUS scan significantly limits generalisability to practice as it does not truly reflect 'point-of-care' ultrasound at all. Reporting incremental diagnostic yield from implementing POCUS into a diagnostic pathway better reflects the value of POCUS; however, this methodology was infrequently used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/h5fe7/).

Association of Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis on Survival: 15-Year Institutional Experience With 1561 Cases.

Background Previous studies regarding survival in patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) are limited. This study measured overall survival in a large cohort of SVTs through linkage to population-based data. Methods and Results Using a previously derived text-search algorithm, we screened the reports of all abdominal ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies at The Ottawa Hospital over 14 years. Screen-positive reports were manually reviewed by at least 2 authors to identify definite SVT cases by consensus. Images of uncertain studies were independently reviewed by 2 radiologists. One thousand five hundred sixty-one adults with SVT (annual incidence ranging from 2.8 to 5.9 cases/10 000 patients) were linked with population-based data sets to measure the presence of concomitant cancer and survival status. Thrombosis involved multiple veins in 314 patients (20.1%), most commonly the portal vein (n=1410, 90.3%). Compared with an age-sex-year matched population, patients with SVT had significantly reduced survival in particular with local cancer (adjusted relative excess risk for recent cases 12.0 [95% CI, 9.8-14.6] and for remote cases 9.7 [7.7-12.2]), distant cancer (relative excess risk for recent cases 5.7 [4.5-7.3] and for remote cases 5.4 [4.4-6.6]), cirrhosis (relative excess risk 8.2 [5.3-12.7]), and previous venous thromboembolism (relative excess risk 3.8 [2.4-6.0]). One hundred fifty (23.9%) of patients >65 years of age were anticoagulated within 1 month of diagnosis. Conclusions SVT is more common than expected. Most patients have cancer and the portal vein is by far the most common vein involved. Compared with the general population, patients with SVT had significantly reduced survival, particularly in patients with concomitant cancer, cirrhosis, and previous venous thromboembolic disease. Most elderly patients did not receive anticoagulant therapy.

Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research.

Importance: Incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy research impairs assessment of risk of bias and limits generalizability. Point-of-care ultrasound has become an important diagnostic tool for acute care physicians, but studies assessing its use are of varying methodological quality. Objective: To assess adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guidelines in the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound. Evidence Review: MEDLINE was searched to identify diagnostic accuracy studies assessing point-of-care ultrasound published in critical care, emergency medicine, or anesthesia journals from 2016 to 2019. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with the following variables analyzed: journal, country, STARD citation, STARD-adopting journal, impact factor, patient population, use of supplemental material, and body region. Data analysis was performed in November 2019. Findings: Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review for assessment. Overall adherence to STARD was moderate, with 66% (mean [SD], 19.7 [2.9] of 30 items) of STARD items reported. Items pertaining to imaging specifications, patient population, and readers of the index test were frequently reported (>66% of studies). Items pertaining to blinding of readers to clinical data and to the index or reference standard, analysis of heterogeneity, indeterminate and missing data, and time intervals between index and reference test were either moderately (33%-66%) or infrequently (<33%) reported. Studies in STARD-adopting journals (mean [SD], 20.5 [2.9] items in adopting journals vs 18.6 [2.3] items in nonadopting journals; P = .002) and studies citing STARD (mean [SD], 21.3 [0.9] items in citing studies vs 19.5 [2.9] items in nonciting studies; P = .01) reported more items. Variation by country and journal of publication were identified. No differences in STARD adherence were identified by body region imaged (mean [SD], abdominal, 20.0 [2.5] items; head and neck, 17.8 [1.6] items; musculoskeletal, 19.2 [3.1] items; thoracic, 20.2 [2.8] items; and other or procedural, 19.8 [2.7] items; P = .29), study design (mean [SD], prospective, 19.7 [2.9] items; retrospective, 19.7 [1.8] items; P > .99), patient population (mean [SD], pediatric, 20.0 [3.1] items; adult, 20.2 [2.7] items; mixed, 17.9 [1.9] items; P = .09), use of supplementary materials (mean [SD], yes, 19.2 [3.0] items; no, 19.7 [2.8] items; P = .91), or journal impact factor (mean [SD], higher impact factor, 20.3 [3.1] items; lower impact factor, 19.1 [2.4] items; P = .08). Conclusions and Relevance: Overall, the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound showed moderate adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with more complete reporting found in studies citing STARD and those published in STARD-adopting journals. This study has established a current baseline for reporting; however, future studies are required to understand barriers to complete reporting and to develop strategies to mitigate them.

Mapping of neuron soma size as an effective approach to delineate differences between neural populations.

BACKGROUND: A single histological marker applied to a slice of tissue often reveals myriad cytoarchitectonic characteristics that can obscure differences between neuron populations targeted for study. Isolation and measurement of a single feature from the tissue is possible through a variety of approaches, however, visualizing the data numerically or through graphs alone can preclude being able to identify important features and effects that are not obvious from direct observation of the tissue. NEW METHOD: We demonstrate an efficient, effective, and robust approach to quantify and visualize cytoarchitectural features in histologically prepared brain sections. We demonstrate that this approach is able to reveal small differences between populations of neurons that might otherwise have gone undiscovered. RESULTS & COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): We used stereological methods to record the cross-sectional soma area and in situ position of neurons within sections of the cat, monkey, and human visual system. The two-dimensional coordinate of every measured cell was used to produce a scatter plot that recapitulated the natural spatial distribution of cells, and each point in the plot was color-coded according to its respective soma area. The final graphic display was a multi-dimensional map of neuron soma size that revealed subtle differences across neuron aggregations, permitted delineation of regional boundaries, and identified small differences between populations of neurons modified by a period of sensory deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: This approach to collecting and displaying cytoarchitectonic data is simple, efficient, and provides a means of investigating small differences between neuron populations.