Mapping the landscape of medical research in the Arab world countries: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the productivity, performance, and impact of medical research in the Arab world countries. METHODS: We carried out a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate Analytics databases from January 2017 to March 2023. We reported research productivity, national and international research collaboration patterns, impact of Arab medical research output compared to the global average, top medical journals publishing Arab-affiliated research, and performance of the most productive Arab institutions. RESULTS: The Arab world contributed 2.72% to global medical research publication, with a citation impact of 11.98 compared to the global impact of 12.02. Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia led medical research publications per million population among Arab countries, ranking 26th, 36th, and 37th globally. Medical research publications increased by 87% annually from 2017-2022, with 70% of research originating from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. National collaborations accounted for 15% of Arab world publications, while international collaborations represented 66%. The median impact factor across the top 20 medical journals with Arab-affiliated authors was 5.14, with 50% being quartile one journals. The top 10 Arab-origin medical journals had a median impact factor of 3.13. Approximately 80% of the top 20 Arab institutions were academic, with a median publication count of 3,162.5 and a median citation impact of 14.5. CONCLUSION: The study provides insights into the state of medical research in the Arab countries, indicating room for improvement in the region's medical research.

Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4). DATA SYNTHESIS: Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit.

A Canadian survey of perceptions and practices related to ordering of blood tests in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: The ordering of routine blood test panels in advance is common in intensive care units (ICUs), with limited consideration of the pretest probability of finding abnormalities. This practice contributes to anemia, false positive results, and health care costs. We sought to understand practices and attitudes of Canadian adult intensivists regarding ordering of blood tests in critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide Canadian cross-sectional survey consisting of 15 questions assessing three domains (global perceptions, test ordering, daily practice), plus 11 demographic questions. The target sample was one intensivist per adult ICU in Canada. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics and present data as mean with standard deviation (SD) or count with percentage as appropriate. RESULTS: Over seven months, 80/131 (61%) physicians responded from 77 ICUs, 50% of which were from Ontario. Respondents had a mean (SD) clinical experience of 12 (9) years, and 61% worked in academic centres. When asked about their perceptions of how frequently unnecessary blood tests are ordered, 61% responded "sometimes" and 23% responded "almost always." Fifty-seven percent favoured ordering complete blood counts one day in advance. Only 24% of respondents believed that advanced blood test ordering frequently led to changes in management. The most common factors perceived to influence blood test ordering in the ICU were physician preferences, institutional patterns, and order sets. CONCLUSION: Most respondents to this survey perceived that unnecessary blood testing occurs in the ICU. The survey identified possible strategies to decrease the number of blood tests.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La prescription à l'avance de tests sanguins de routine est courante dans les unités de soins intensifs (USI), avec une prise en compte limitée de la probabilité de découverte d'anomalies avant le test. Cette pratique contribue à l'anémie, aux résultats faussement positifs et aux coûts des soins de santé. Nous avons cherché à comprendre les pratiques et les attitudes des intensivistes pour adultes au Canada en ce qui concerne la prescription d'analyses sanguines chez la patientèle gravement malade. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené un sondage transversal à l'échelle nationale au Canada en posant 15 questions évaluant trois domaines (perceptions globales, commande de tests, pratique quotidienne), ainsi que 11 questions démographiques. L'échantillon cible était composé d'un·e intensiviste par unité de soins intensifs pour adultes au Canada. Nous avons résumé les réponses à l'aide de statistiques descriptives et présenté les données sous forme de moyennes avec écarts type (ET) ou de dénombrements avec pourcentages, selon le cas. RéSULTATS: Sur une période de sept mois, 80 médecins sur 131 (61%) ont répondu dans 77 unités de soins intensifs, dont 50% en Ontario. Les répondant·es avaient une expérience clinique moyenne (ET) de 12 (9) ans, et 61% travaillaient dans des centres universitaires. Lorsqu'on leur a demandé ce qu'ils ou elles pensaient de la fréquence à laquelle des tests sanguins inutiles étaient prescrits, 61% ont répondu « parfois ¼ et 23% ont répondu « presque toujours ¼. Cinquante-sept pour cent étaient en faveur de la réalisation d'une formule sanguine complète un jour à l'avance. Seulement 24% des personnes interrogées estimaient que la prescription de tests sanguins à l'avance entraînait fréquemment des changements dans la prise en charge. Les facteurs les plus souvent perçus comme influençant la prescription d'analyses sanguines à l'unité de soins intensifs étaient les préférences des médecins, les habitudes institutionnelles et les ensembles d'ordonnances. CONCLUSION: La plupart des répondant·es à ce sondage ont l'impression que des tests sanguins inutiles sont prescrits aux soins intensifs. L'enquête a permis d'identifier des stratégies possibles pour réduire le nombre de tests sanguins.

GRADE pearls and pitfalls-Part 1: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is used to assess the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: We describe how the GRADE approach is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including key points and examples. This overview is aimed at clinicians and researchers who are, or plan to be, involved in the development or assessment of systematic reviews with meta-analyses using GRADE. RESULTS: We outline how the certainty of evidence is assessed, how the evidence is summarized using GRADE evidence profiles or summary of findings tables, how the results are communicated, and we discuss challenges, advantages, and disadvantages with using GRADE. CONCLUSIONS: This overview aims to provide an overview of how GRADE is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and may be used by systematic review developers, methodologists, and evidence end-users.

GRADE pearls and pitfalls-Part 2: Clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the de facto standard framework for summarising evidence in systematic reviews and developing recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We describe how the GRADE approach is used in clinical practice guidelines, including key points and examples. The intended audience of this overview of GRADE is clinicians and researchers who are, or plan to be, involved in the development or assessment of clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: We cover guideline endorsement and adaptation; guideline panels and sponsors; conflicts of interest; guideline questions and outcome prioritisation; systematic review creation, updating and re-use; rating the overall certainty of evidence; development of recommendations and implications; and peer review, publication, implementation and updating of guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This overview aims to help developers, assessors and users of clinical practice guidelines understand how trustworthy, high-quality guidelines are developed using the GRADE approach.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients: A rapid practice guideline.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) was to provide evidence-based clinical guidance about the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The guideline panel comprised 27 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. A recently published updated systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. Through teleconferences and web-based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. The updated systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 17 randomized clinical trials with 10,248 participants. There was little to no difference between the use of higher versus lower oxygenation targets for all outcomes with available data, including all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, stroke, functional outcomes, cognition, and health-related quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). The panel felt that values and preferences, costs and resources, and equity favored the use of lower oxygenation targets. The ICM-RPG panel issued one conditional recommendation against the use of higher oxygenation targets: "We suggest against the routine use of higher oxygenation targets in adult ICU patients (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Remark: an oxygenation target of SpO2 88%-92% or PaO2 8 kPa/60 mmHg is relevant and safe for most adult ICU patients."

REVISE: re-evaluating the inhibition of stress erosions in the ICU-statistical analysis plan for a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The REVISE (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU) trial will evaluate the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared to placebo in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. OBJECTIVE: To outline the statistical analysis plan for the REVISE trial. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized clinical trial ongoing in intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. Patients ≥ 18 years old, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and expected to remain ventilated beyond the calendar day after randomization are allocated to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or placebo while mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding; the primary safety outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes are ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine concentration, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay. Following an interim analysis of results from 2400 patients (50% of 4800 target sample size), the data monitoring committee recommended continuing enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: This statistical analysis plan outlines the statistical analyses of all outcomes, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses. REVISE will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT03374800. November 21, 2017.

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03374800.

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Intravenous vitamin C therapy in adult patients with sepsis: A rapid practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline provides an evidence-based recommendation to address the question: in adults with sepsis or septic shock, should we recommend using or not using intravenous vitamin C therapy? METHODS: The panel included 21 experts from 16 countries and used a strict policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development, and Evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach, we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement among the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. RESULTS: At longest follow-up, 90 days, intravenous vitamin C probably does not substantially impact (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.17; absolute risk difference 1.8%, 95% CI -2.2 to 6.2; 6 trials, n = 2148, moderate certainty). Effects of vitamin C on mortality at earlier timepoints was of low or very low certainty due to risk of bias of the included studies and significant heterogeneity between study results. Few adverse events were reported with the use of vitamin C. The panel did not identify any major differences in other outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator free days, hospital or intensive care unit length of stay, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy. Vitamin C may result in a slight reduction in duration of vasopressor support (MD -18.9 h, 95% CI -26.5 to -11.4; 21 trials, n = 2661, low certainty); but may not reduce sequential organ failure assessment scores (MD -0.69, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.71; 24 trials, n = 4002, low certainty). The panel judged the undesirable consequences of using IV vitamin C to probably outweigh the desirable consequences, and therefore issued a conditional recommendation against using IV vitamin C therapy in sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests against use of intravenous vitamin C in adult patients with sepsis, beyond that of standard nutritional supplementation. Small and single center trials on this topic should be discouraged.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSION: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

What counts as patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU? A mixed-methods study protocol of patient and family perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding is conventionally defined as bleeding accompanied by haemodynamic changes, requiring red blood cell transfusions or other invasive interventions. However, it is unclear if this clinical definition reflects patient values and preferences. This protocol describes a study to elicit views from patients and families regarding features, tests, and treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding that are important to them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-centre study with an instrument-building aim. We developed orientation tools and educational materials in partnership with patients and family members, including a slide deck and executive summary. We will invite intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and family members of former ICU patients to participate. Following a virtual interactive presentation, participants will share their perspectives in an interview or focus group. Qualitative data will be analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, wherein codes will be derived directly from the data rather than using preconceived categories. Concurrent data collection and analysis will occur. Quantitative data will include self-reported demographic characteristics. This study will synthesise the values and perspectives of patients and family members to create a new trial outcome for a randomised trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis. This study is planned for May 2022 to August 2023. The pilot work was completed in Spring 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethics approval from McMaster University and the University of Calgary. Findings will be disseminated via manuscript and through incorporation as a secondary trial outcome on stress ulcer prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05506150.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations­one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate­high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.