Is it time to study routine car seat tolerance screening in a randomized controlled trial? An international survey of current practice and clinician equipoise.
Is it time to study routine car seat tolerance screening in a randomized controlled trial? An international survey of current practice and clinician equipoise.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41372-021-01167-7
复制
发表时间：
2022-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Dysart K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jensen EA;Greenspan JS;Aghai ZH;Carola DL;Eichenwald EC;DeMauro SB;Dysart K
在新生儿热的主题是一个大型的，在美国（US）举行的年度会议，由新生儿医疗保健提供者的国际观众出席。2018年12月4日出席会议的与会者被要求完成一项匿名的“纸笔”调查，该调查收集了有关早产儿中CSTS的受访者人口统计学，当前使用和意见的数据，并平衡进行2项假设的随机试验。这两项试验都建议招募妊娠< 37周出生的婴儿，他们呼吸室内空气，并且在医学上认为可以出院回家。试验1将婴儿随机分为两组，一组在未接受CSTS的情况下出院回家，另一组接受CSTS，出院取决于根据研究者商定的失败标准（未提供具体标准）通过CSTS。在试验#2中，所有婴儿均接受CSTS，但随机分为允许/自由或限制/保守失败标准。受访者被要求假设两项试验的主要结局是他们认为最能评估CSTS效用的结局。获得了有关首选CSTS失败标准、失败后管理和主要试验结果的数据。抽样调查和管理细节可在网上查阅。使用Stata/SE 15.1（学院站，德克萨斯州）总结数据。费城儿童医院的机构审查委员会批准了这项研究。ResultsOf 1255注册的会议出席者，488（39%）返回了调查。其中，87%（414/478）是医生，70%（344/478）在美国执业，99%（477/484）曾为早产儿提供重症监护。受访者来自6大洲的28个国家。
MethodsHot Topics in Neonatology is a large, annual conference held in the United States (US), attended by an international audience of neonatal healthcare providers. Attendees present on December 4, 2018 were asked to complete an anonymous “paper and pencil” survey that collected data on respondent demographics, current use and opinions regarding CSTS in preterm infants, and equipoise to conduct 2 hypothetical randomized trials. Both trials proposed enrolling infants born< 37 weeks’ gestation who were breathing in room air and otherwise considered medically ready for discharge to home. Trial# 1 randomized infants to either be discharged home without CSTS or to undergo CSTS with discharge contingent upon passing a CSTS according to investigator agreed upon failure criteria (specific criteria were not provided). In trial# 2, all infants underwent CSTS but were randomized to either permissive/liberal or restrictive/conservative failure criteria. Respondents were asked to assume that the primary outcome for both trials was one they believed best assessed the utility of CSTS. Data on preferred CSTS failure criteria, post-failure management, and the primary trial outcome were obtained. A sample survey and details of administration are available online. Data were summarized using Stata/SE 15.1 (College Station, Texas). The Institutional Review Board at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia approved this study.ResultsOf 1255 registered conference attendees, 488 (39%) returned a survey. Of these, 87%(414/478) were physicians, 70%(344/478) practiced in the US, and 99%(477/484) had provided intensive care to preterm infants. Respondents represented 28 countries and 6 continents.
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
WILLETT, LD;LEUSCHEN, MP;NELSON, RM
通讯作者：
NELSON, RM
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
JOHNSON, N;LILFORD, RJ;BRAZIER, W
通讯作者：
BRAZIER, W
影响因子：
8
作者：
Bull, Marilyn J.;Engle, William A.
通讯作者：
Engle, William A.