Abstract
Introduction The assessment of patient reported outcomes following neurological injury remains a challenging area of neurocritical care research. Mortality amongst the neurocritical patient population remains high with a significant proportion of survivors left suffering functional, cognitive and emotional deficits, often with a reduced health-related quality of life and leaving them dependent on caregivers. Numerous instruments have been developed to assess the level of impairment patients experience following a global neurological injury. Previous systematic reviews have reported significant heterogeneity in outcome assessment in neurocritical car trials, including the outcome measure used, method of ascertainment and the timing of outcome assessment. It has been suggested that this heterogeneity in outcome assessment has complicated the design of neurocritical care clinical trials, the pooling and meta-analysis of trial data and has led to conflicting and controversial trial results. It is unclear what impact the methods of performing outcome assessment has on loss follow up rates and the validity of outcome data in neurocritical care trials.
We aim to systematically review the methods of performing outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials to identify current trends in outcome assessment in this patient population and to examine loss to follow up rates and factors impacting cohort attrition. It is hoped that an understanding of the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and loss to follow up will inform future design of neurocritical care trials.
Methods and analysis This systematic review will include randomized clinical trials and large prospective observational cohort studies where the included population is adults with a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury or a subarachnoid haemorrhage and reporting at least one patient reported outcome measure. Inclusion will not be limited based on intervention nor comparator. We will limit the searches to human studies, with reports published in the English language and published within the last 10 years. We will search the Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central registry of clinical trial (CENTRAL) for eligible trials. We will manually search the reference list of relevant primary review articles, clinical registries, and abstracts from recent relevant conferences
Conclusion This systematic review and will provide clinicians with an understanding of the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and loss to follow up will inform future design of neurocritical care trials.
INTRODUCTION
The assessment of patient reported outcomes following neurological injury remains a challenging area of neurocritical care research. Mortality amongst the neurocritical patient population remains high at 5 - 34% (1-3) with a significant proportion of survivors left suffering functional, cognitive and emotional deficits, often with a reduced health-related quality of life and leaving them dependent on caregivers (4, 5). Numerous instruments have been developed to assess the level of impairment patients experience following a global neurological injury (6-8). A systematic review by Tate et al. (2013) identified 728 unique instruments used for outcome assessment in traumatic brain injury (TBI) trials (6) while a systematic review by Andersen et al (2018) reported 285 unique outcome measures, including various functional outcome measures, used in subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) trials (8). These reviews reported significant heterogeneity in outcome assessment, including the outcome measure used, method of ascertainment and the timing of outcome assessment (6, 8, 9). It has been suggested that this heterogeneity of outcome assessment has complicated the design of neurocritical care clinical trials, the pooling and meta-analysis of trial data and has led to conflicting and controversial trial results (4, 9-11).
It is unclear what impact the methods of performing outcome assessment has on loss follow up rates and the validity of outcome data in neurocritical care trials. Neurocritical care trials often report high loss to follow up rates of 15-29% (2, 12-14). Although inevitable in long term follow up studies, loss to follow up can bias trial results (15, 16). It has been suggested that a loss to follow-up of <5% leads to little bias while >20% poses a threat to the validity of trial results (15, 17).
We aim to systematically review the methods of performing outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials to identify current trends in outcome assessment in this patient population and to examine loss to follow up rates and factors impacting cohort attrition. It is hoped that an understanding of the relationship between methods of outcome assessment and loss to follow up will inform future design of neurocritical care trials.
Objectives
To identify methods of outcome assessment and examine loss to follow up in trials published between 2010 and 2020 enrolling patients admitted to intensive care with aneurysmal SAH or TBI.
METHODS
We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials and prospective cohort studies in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This systematic review has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Study Types
This systematic review will include all randomized clinical trials and prospective observational cohort studies that included a minimum of 100 participants.
Population
We will include trials where the included population is adults with a diagnosis of TBI or aSAH
Intervention/comparator
Inclusion will not be limited based on intervention nor comparator.
Outcomes
We will include studies reporting at least one patient reported outcome measure.
Exclusion criteria
We will limit the searches to human studies, with reports published in the English language and published within the last 10 years
Information Sources
We will search the Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central registry of clinical trial (CENTRAL) for eligible trials, if any. We will manually search the reference list of relevant primary review articles, clinical registries, and abstracts from recent relevant conferences and contact experts in the field.
Search Strategy
We will search Medline and EMBASE (using the OVID interface) and CENTRAL. We will conduct MeSH and keyword searches for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage or traumatic brain injury combined with MeSH and keyword searches for intensive care or critical care, with filters for randomized clinical trials and observational studies.
DATA MANAGEMENT
References of studies yielded by the search will be uploaded into COVIDENCE. Data will be extracted into a purpose built excel spreadsheet and analysed in STATA.
Study Selection process
The review authors will develop screening forms based on the eligibility criteria. To ensure consistency between reviewers, a calibration exercise will be undertaken to pilot and refine the screening forms prior to commencing the formal screening process.
The review authors (EF, QF, RV, GM and KR) will independently and in duplicate screen the titles and abstracts yielded by the search. Full-text reports will be obtained for all titles and abstracts that appear to meet the eligibility criteria or where there is any uncertainty. The review authors will independently screen the full-text articles and decide whether they meet the eligibility criteria. We will seek additional information from study authors where necessary to resolve questions about eligibility. Reviewers will resolve disagreements by discussion, and an arbitrator will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.
Data Collection Process
The review authors will develop data collection forms and a detailed instruction manual to extract data from included studies. To ensure consistency between reviewers, a calibration exercise will be undertaken to pilot and refine the data collection form prior to commencing the formal data collection process. The review authors will extract data independently and in duplicate from each included study. We will seek additional information from study authors where necessary to resolve questions. Reviewers will resolve disagreements by discussion, and an arbitrator will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.
Data Items
We will extract data regarding study characteristics (including first author, year of publication, study type, number of participants, location of site, number of sites) as well as details of patient outcome assessment (primary outcome measure, patient reported outcome measure used, method of ascertainment, blinding of outcome assessors, training of outcome assessors, timing of follow up, duration of follow up, loss to follow up)
Risk of bias individual studies
The review authors will independently and in duplicate make a judgement as to the possible risk of bias of each included study based on various domains. If there is insufficient detail reported in the study, we will judge the risk of bias as ‘unclear’. Reviewers will resolve disagreements by discussion, and an arbitrator will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.
The review authors will assess the quality of included RCT using the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess risk of bias for randomised trials. The following domains will be addressed in assessing the risk of bias:
Selection bias (including method of randomization and allocation concealment)
Performance bias
Detection Bias
Attrition Bias
Selective reporting bias
Other bias
The review authors will assess the quality of included prospective cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa for assessing the risk of bias. The following domains will be addressed in assessing the risk of bias:
Bias due to confounding
Bias in selection of participants into the study
Bias in classification of intervention
Bias due to deviation from intended interventions
Bias in measurement of outcomes
Bias in selection of reported result
OUTCOMES
Primary
To describe patient reported outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials, specifically;
- Patient reported outcome measure/s used
- Methods of assessing patient reported outcome
Secondary
To report other key aspects of outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials, specifically;
- Primary outcome measure of the trial
- Timing and duration of outcome assessment
- Loss to follow up rates
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
DATA SYNTHESIS
We will present simple statistics regarding the range and frequency of use of patient reported outcome assessment instruments, method of assessment, timing of outcome measurement.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This review does not require ethical approval as this is a systematic review of published studies. We plan to present the results of the systematic review at national and international scientific meetings and will prepare a manuscript for submission to a peer reviewed journal.
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
This systematic review will provide a comprehensive review of patient reported outcome assessment in neurocritical care trials. We acknowledge that there will be limitations to the proposed systematic review, including that eligible studies are anticipated to be heterogeneous in nature due to variations in the included trials, such as the trial design, trial population and the intervention or comparator used. In addition, the strength of the systematic review may be limited by the quality of reporting of the outcome assessment in included studies.
FUNDING
There is no external funding for this review. The Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine is providing in-kind support for this review.
Footnotes
Authors
Ms Emily Fitzgerald, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Emily.fitzgerald{at}health.nsw.gov.au
Dr Lachlan Donaldson, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, lachlandonaldson{at}gmail.com
Dr Oliver Flower, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, oliver.flower{at}gmail.com
Dr Naomi Hammond, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, nhammond{at}georgeinstitute.org.au
Kwan Yee Leung, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, KwanYee.Leung{at}health.nsw.edu.au
Dr Gabrielle McDonald, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, gabijmcdonald{at}gmail.com
Dr Kirtsen Rowcliff, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, kirsten.rowcliff{at}gmail.com
Dr Ruan Vlok, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards 2065 NSW Australia, ruan.vlok1{at}my.nd.edu.au
Associate Professor Anthony Delaney, Malcolm Fisher Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital and Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, adelaney{at}med.usyd.edu.au
Amendments: The protocol has not been amended since it was published
Funding sources/sponsors: This systematic review will not receive funding support
Registration: This systematic review protocol will be prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).