British journal of anaesthesia
-
Editorial Comment
Trials with 'non-significant' results are not insignificant trials: a common significance threshold distorts reporting and interpretation of trial results.
We discuss a newly published study examining how phrases are used in clinical trials to describe results when the estimated P-value is close to (slightly above or slightly below) 0.05, which has been arbitrarily designated by convention as the boundary for 'statistical significance'. Terms such as 'marginally significant', 'trending towards significant', and 'nominally significant' are well represented in biomedical literature, but are not actually scientifically meaningful. ⋯ Instead, investigators could simply report their findings: effect sizes, P-values, and confidence intervals (or their Bayesian equivalents), and leave it to the discerning reader to infer the clinical applicability and importance. Our goal should be to move away from describing studies (or trials) as positive or negative based on an arbitrary P-value threshold, and rather to judge whether the scientific evidence provided is informative or uninformative.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
We performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications. ⋯ PROSPERO CRD42021272220.
-
Multicenter Study
Factors associated with failed epidural blood patch after accidental dural puncture in obstetrics: a prospective, multicentre, international cohort study.
Unsuccessful epidural blood patch is associated with higher lumbar levels, shorter time between puncture & patch, and with patients with migraine history.
pearl -
Review Meta Analysis
Bayesian analysis of a systematic review of early versus late tracheostomy in ICU patients.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of early vs late tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients suggest that early tracheostomy reduces the duration of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation, but does not reduce short-term mortality or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Meta-analysis of randomised trials is typically performed using a frequentist approach, and although reporting confidence intervals, interpretation is usually based on statistical significance. To provide a robust basis for clinical decision-making, we completed the search used from the previous review and analysed the data using Bayesian methods to estimate posterior probabilities of the effect of early tracheostomy on clinical outcomes. ⋯ Bayesian meta-analysis suggests a high probability that early tracheostomy compared with delayed tracheostomy has at least some benefit across all clinical outcomes considered.