Study protocol for the safety and efficacy of probiotic therapy on days alive and out of hospital in adult ICU patients: the multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled Restoration Of gut microflora in Critical Illness Trial (ROCIT).

INTRODUCTION: The effect of early and sustained administration of daily probiotic therapy on patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) remains uncertain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Restoration Of gut microflora in Critical Illness Trial (ROCIT) study is a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, two-sided superiority trial that will enrol 220 patients in five ICUs. Adult patients who are within 48 hours of admission to an ICU and are expected to require intensive care beyond the next calendar day will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive early and sustained Lactobacillus plantarum 299v probiotic therapy in addition to usual care or placebo in addition to usual care. The primary endpoint is days alive and out of hospital to day 60. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ROCIT has been approved by the South Metropolitan Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: RGS00000004) and the St John of God Health Care Human Research Ethics Committee (ref: 1183). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR12617000783325); Pre-results.

The effect of prognostic data presentation format on perceived risk among surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients: a randomized comparative trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether varying the format used to present prognostic data alters the perception of risk among surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a prospective randomized comparative trial conducted in a 23-bed adult tertiary ICU. Enrolled surrogate decision makers were randomized to 1 of 2 questionnaires, which presented hypothetical ICU scenarios, identical other than the format in which prognostic data were presented (eg, frequencies vs percentages). Participants were asked to rate the risk associated with each prognostic statement. RESULTS: We enrolled 141 surrogate decision makers. The perception of risk varied significantly dependent on the presentation format. For "quantitative data," risks were consistently perceived as higher, when presented as frequencies (eg, 1 in 50) compared with equivalent percentages (eg, 2%). Framing "qualitative data" in terms of chance of "death" rather than "survival" led to a statistically significant increase in perceived risks. Framing "quantitative" data in this way did not significantly affect risk perception. CONCLUSION: Data format had a significant effect on how surrogate decision makers interpreted risk. Qualitative statements are interpreted widely and affected by framing. Where possible, multiple quantitative formats should be used for presenting prognostic information.