A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effect of biological sex in lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury.

It is unclear what effect biological sex has on outcomes of acute lung injury (ALI). Clinical studies are confounded by their observational design. We addressed this knowledge gap with a preclinical systematic review of ALI animal studies. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies of intratracheal/intranasal/aerosolized lipopolysaccharide administration (the most common ALI model) that reported sex-stratified data. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Our primary outcome was histological tissue injury and secondary outcomes included alveolar-capillary barrier alterations and inflammatory markers. We used a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis, expressing data as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool. We identified six studies involving 132 animals across 11 independent experiments. A total of 41 outcomes were extracted, with the direction of effect suggesting greater severity in males than females in 26/41 outcomes (63%). One study reported on lung histology and found that male mice exhibited greater injury than females (SMD: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.53-2.69). Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly elevated albumin levels (SMD: 2.17, 95% CI: 0.63-3.70) and total cell counts (SMD: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.27-1.33) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from male mice compared with female mice. Most studies had an "unclear risk of bias." Our findings suggest sex-related differences in ALI severity. However, these conclusions are drawn from a small number of animals and studies. Further research is required to address the fundamental issue of biological sex differences in LPS-induced ALI.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points). RESULTS: We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

What guidance exists to support patient partner compensation practices? A scoping review of available policies and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. METHODS: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12-$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. CONCLUSION: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings.

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review.

PURPOSE: Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery. SOURCE: We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b). CONCLUSION: This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'amélioration de la prestation des soins périopératoires dépend de la capacité de mesurer les résultats qui peuvent orienter des changements significatifs dans la pratique. Nous avons cherché à identifier et à fournir une vue d'ensemble des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité spécifiques à la pratique de l'anesthésie en chirurgie non cardiaque. SOURCES: Nous avons mené une revue d'ensemble (une revue systématique des revues systématiques) selon la méthodologie de l'Institut Joanna Briggs. Nous avons inclus des revues systématiques examinant les indicateurs périopératoires chez les patient·es âgé·es de 18 ans ou plus bénéficiant d'une chirurgie non cardiaque. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était tout indicateur de qualité spécifique à l'anesthésie. Les indicateurs ont été classés en fonction du système de Donabedian et de la phase périopératoire des soins. La qualité des revues systématiques a été évaluée à l'aide des critères AMSTAR 2. Le niveau de donnée probante des indicateurs de qualité a été stratifié selon l'Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Notre recherche a permis de trouver 1475 études. Après avoir éliminé les doublons et examiné les résumés et les textes intégraux, 23 revues systématiques englobant 3164 études primaires ont répondu à nos critères d'inclusion. Il y avait 330 indicateurs de qualité uniques. Les indicateurs de processus étaient les plus courants (n = 169), suivi des indicateurs de résultats (n = 114) et des indicateurs de structure (n = 47). Peu d'indicateurs identifiés étaient étayés par des données probantes de haut niveau (45/330, 14 %). Les données probantes de niveau 1 ont confirmé les indicateurs de l'antibioprophylaxie (1a), de la prophylaxie pour la thromboembolie veineuse (1a), de la prophylaxie postopératoire pour les nausées/vomissements (1b), du maintien de la normothermie (1a) et de la fluidothérapie ciblée (1b). CONCLUSION: Cet examen d'ensemble met en évidence la rareté des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité qui sont étayés par des données probantes de haute qualité. L'élaboration future d'indicateurs de qualité et de recommandations pour la mesure des résultats devrait être axée sur des paramètres étayés par des données probantes de niveau 1. Les cibles potentielles des programmes d'amélioration de la qualité de l'anesthésie fondés sur des données probantes sont identifiées dans le présent manuscrit. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); premier enregistrement le 28 avril 2020.

Exploring Patient Viewpoints to Optimize Implementation of a Biological Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Prevention.

Background: Embracing patient viewpoints can enhance the translation of novel therapeutics to clinical settings. This study evaluated the acceptability of using extracellular vesicles (EVs) as a biological therapy for preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), through engagement with patients, providing insights into their attitudes and information needs. Methods: Patients participated in prerecorded presentations, virtual focus groups, and surveys to assess their perspectives on EV therapy and determine the factors influencing their acceptance of the intervention. Results: Participants with postoperative AF experienced prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays, compared to those of patients with normal heart rhythm. Prior to the presentation, a number of participants were unfamiliar with postoperative AF and biological therapies. However, postpresentation and post-focus group activities resulted in enhanced understanding of the research, with high levels of comprehension reported by all participants. The level of acceptance of EV therapy tended to increase, with a majority expressing willingness to participate in clinical trials and accept the therapy. The focus groups identified and addressed common questions regarding the potential risks and side effects of EVs, their source, dosing, utility for patients with preexisting AF, and the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) contraction or allergic reactions. Conclusions: The study highlights the importance of providing education, involving the patient's circle of care, and addressing patient concerns, to promote acceptance of therapies such as EV therapy for postoperative AF. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05032495.

Contexte: Adopter le point de vue des patients permet de faciliter l'introduction de nouveaux traitements en milieu clinique. Cette étude visait à évaluer l'acceptabilité des vésicules extracellulaires comme traitement biologique dans la prévention de la fibrillation auriculaire postopératoire en favorisant un rapprochement avec les patients, en comprenant leurs attitudes et leurs besoins d'information. Méthodologie: Les patients ont assisté à des présentations préenregistrées, ont participé à des groupes de discussion virtuels et ont rempli des questionnaires. L'objectif était d'évaluer leur point de vue sur les vésicules extracellulaires et de déterminer les facteurs influençant l'acceptation de l'intervention. Résultats: Les participants atteints de fibrillation auriculaire postopératoire sont restés plus longtemps à l'unité des soins intensifs et à l'hôpital par comparaison aux patients ayant un rythme cardiaque normal. Avant la présentation, un certain nombre de participants ne connaissaient pas la fibrillation auriculaire postopératoire et les traitements biologiques. Cependant, après la présentation et le groupe de discussion, les participants ont pu mieux comprendre la recherche, et tous ont indiqué un niveau de compréhension élevé. Le degré d'acceptation des vésicules extracellulaires avait tendance à augmenter. En effet, la majorité des patients se disait prête à participer à des essais cliniques et à accepter le traitement. Les groupes de discussion ont relevé et abordé des questions communes concernant les risques et effets secondaires des vésicules extracellulaires, leur source, leur dose, leur utilité pour les patients présentant une fibrillation auriculaire préexistante et le risque d'infection par le virus de l'immunodéficience humaine (VIH) ou de réactions allergiques. Conclusions: L'étude souligne l'importance de l'éducation, de la participation du réseau de soins du patient et de la prise en compte des préoccupations du patient pour favoriser l'acceptation de traitements comme les vésicules extracellulaires pour la fibrillation auriculaire postopératoire. Enregistrement de l'essai clinique: NCT05032495.

A qualitative evaluation of treatment fidelity alongside a pilot trial of a novel therapy for pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials can improve understanding of treatment fidelity and provide contextual knowledge to aide interpretations of trial outcomes. We adopted a multiple-goals perspective to investigate treatment fidelity in two related pilot clinical trials of an adjuvant treatment for pediatric-onset Inflammatory Bowel Disease. This included a focus on barriers and enablers of performing trial-specific activities and of integrating those activities into daily life. METHODS: We conducted one-time semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of participants of the Resistant Starch in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease (NCT04522271) and Optimized Resistant Starch in Inflammatory Bowel Disease pilot trials (NCT04520594) and their caregivers (N = 42). The trials examined the effects of personalized food-derived resistant starches as an adjuvant therapy on intestinal microbiome functioning. Interviews were conducted within 3-months of participants completing or withdrawing from the trials. Interview guides with age-appropriate language were developed and pilot tested. Codes were identified inductively though conventional content analysis and then mapped to personal projects analysis, to explore how participants navigated between activities. RESULTS: Three themes were identified. The first described the potential impact of living with inflammatory bowel disease and taking prescribed medications. The second described characteristics of trial-specific activities that might impact on their enactment, including perceived difficulty, and challenges following procedures or using trial materials. The third described the integration of trial-specific activities with school, work, household demands, and social, and extracurricular activities. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting to living with inflammatory bowel disease and managing its treatment can impact trial participation. Integrating trial-related activities into daily life can be challenging, which could heighten perceptions of goal conflict. Findings can inform interpretations of trial outcomes and development of strategies for trial optimization and implementation of the adjuvant therapy into clinical practice.

Impact of age on the host response to sepsis in a murine model of fecal-induced peritonitis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite older adults being more vulnerable to sepsis, most preclinical research on sepsis has been conducted using young animals. This results in decreased scientific validity since age is an independent predictor of poor outcome. In this study, we explored the impact of aging on the host response to sepsis using the fecal-induced peritonitis (FIP) model developed by the National Preclinical Sepsis Platform (NPSP). METHODS: C57BL/6 mice (3 or 12 months old) were injected intraperitoneally with rat fecal slurry (0.75 mg/g) or a control vehicle. To investigate the early stage of sepsis, mice were culled at 4 h, 8 h, or 12 h to investigate disease severity, immunothrombosis biomarkers, and organ injury. Mice received buprenorphine at 4 h post-FIP. A separate cohort of FIP mice were studied for 72 h (with buprenorphine given at 4 h, 12 h, and then every 12 h post-FIP and antibiotics/fluids starting at 12 h post-FIP). Organs were harvested, plasma levels of Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, monocyte chemoattract protein (MCP-1)/CCL2, thrombin-antithrombin (TAT) complexes, cell-free DNA (CFDNA), and ADAMTS13 activity were quantified, and bacterial loads were measured. RESULTS: In the 12 h time course study, aged FIP mice demonstrated increased inflammation and injury to the lungs compared to young FIP mice. In the 72 h study, aged FIP mice exhibited a higher mortality rate (89%) compared to young FIP mice (42%) (p < 0.001). Aged FIP non-survivors also exhibited a trend towards elevated IL-6, TAT, CFDNA, CCL2, and decreased IL-10, and impaired bacterial clearance compared to young FIP non-survivors. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of age on survival using the FIP model of sepsis. Our model includes clinically-relevant supportive therapies and inclusion of both sexes. The higher mortality rate in aged mice may reflect increased inflammation and worsened organ injury in the early stage of sepsis. We also observed trends in impaired bacterial clearance, increase in IL-6, TAT, CFDNA, CCL2, and decreased IL-10 and ADAMTS13 activity in aged septic non-survivors compared to young septic non-survivors. Our aging model may help to increase the scientific validity of preclinical research and may be useful for identifying mechanisms of age-related susceptibility to sepsis as well as age-specific treatment strategies.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during surgery under general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439896.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

Intraoperative Blood Management Strategies for Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: The Ottawa Intraoperative Transfusion Consensus.

Importance: There is marked variability in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during the intraoperative period. The development and implementation of existing clinical practice guidelines have been ineffective in reducing this variability. Objective: To develop an internationally endorsed consensus statement about intraoperative transfusion in major noncardiac surgery. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus survey technique with an anonymous 3-round iterative rating and feedback process was used. An expert panel of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and transfusion medicine specialists was recruited internationally. Statements were informed by extensive preparatory work, including a systematic reviews of intraoperative RBC guidelines and clinical trials, an interview study with patients to explore their perspectives about intraoperative transfusion, and interviews with physicians to understand the various behaviors that influence intraoperative transfusion decision-making. Thirty-eight statements were developed addressing (1) decision-making (interprofessional communication, clinical factors, procedural considerations, and audits), (2) restrictive transfusion strategies, (3) patient-centred considerations, and (4) research considerations (equipoise, outcomes, and protocol suspension). Panelists were asked to score statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was established with at least 75% agreement. Findings: The 34-member expert panel (14 of 33 women [42%]) included 16 anesthesiologists, 11 surgeons, and 7 transfusion specialists; panelists had a median of 16 years' experience (range, 2-50 years), mainly in Canada (52% [17 of 33]), the US (27% [9 of 33]), and Europe (15% [5 of 33]). The panel recommended routine preoperative and intraoperative discussion between surgeons and anesthesiologists about intraoperative RBC transfusion as well as postoperative review of intraoperative transfusion events. Point-of-care hemoglobin testing devices were recommended for transfusion guidance, alongside an algorithmic transfusion protocol with a restrictive hemoglobin trigger; however, more research is needed to evaluate the use of restrictive triggers in the operating room. Expert consensus recommended a detailed preoperative consent discussion with patients of the risks and benefits of both anemia and RBC transfusion and routine disclosure of intraoperative transfusion. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were recommended as the most relevant outcomes associated with intraoperative RBC transfusion, and transfusion triggers of 70 and 90 g/L were considered acceptable hemoglobin triggers to evaluate restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, respectively, in clinical trials. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement offers internationally endorsed expert guidance across several key domains on intraoperative RBC transfusion practice for noncardiac surgical procedures for which patients are at medium or high risk of bleeding. Future work should emphasize knowledge translation strategies to integrate these recommendations into routine clinical practice and transfusion research activities.

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas

RESUMO A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ABSTRACT The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

RESUMEN La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.