Search

Objective: To assess variability in the intraoperative use of non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) across individual anaesthesia providers, surgeons and hospitals., Design: Retrospective observational cohort study., Setting: Two major tertiary referral centres, Boston, Massachusetts, USA., Participants: 265 537 adult participants undergoing non-cardiac surgery between October 2005 and September 2017., Main Outcome Measures: We analysed the variances in NMBA use across 958 anaesthesia and 623 surgical providers, across anaesthesia provider types (anaesthesia residents, certified registered nurse anaesthetists, attendings) and across hospitals using multivariable-adjusted mixed effects logistic regression. Intraclass correlations (ICC) were calculated to further quantify the variability in NMBA use that was unexplained by other covariates. Procedure-specific subgroup analyses were performed., Results: NMBAs were used in 183 242 (69%) surgical cases. Variances in NMBA use were significantly higher among individual surgeons than among anaesthesia providers (variance 1.32 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.60) vs 0.24 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.28), p<0.001). Procedure-specific subgroup analysis of hernia repairs, spine surgeries and mastectomies confirmed our findings: the total variance in NMBA use that was unexplained by the covariate model was higher for surgeons versus anaesthesia providers (ICC 37.0% vs 13.0%, 69.7% vs 25.5%, 69.8% vs 19.5%, respectively; p<0.001). Variances in NMBA use were also partially explained by the anaesthesia provider's hospital network (Massachusetts General Hospital: variance 0.35 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.43) vs Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: 0.15 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.19); p<0.001). Across provider types, surgeons showed the highest variance, and anaesthesia residents showed the lowest variance in NMBA use., Conclusions: There is wide variability across individual surgeons and anaesthesia providers and institutions in the use of NMBAs, which could not sufficiently be explained by a large number of patient-related and procedure-related characteristics, but may instead be driven by preference. Surgeons may have a stronger influence on a key aspect of anaesthesia management than anticipated., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TTH reports grants from NINDS (PI), grants from NIGMS, personal fees from Headache, personal fees from Anesthesiology, personal fees from Cephalalgia, outside the submitted work. ME received honorarium for giving advice to Merck, holds equity of Calabash Bioscience and is an Associate Editor of the British Journal of Anaesthesia., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Infants can experience pain similar to adults, and improperly controlled pain stimuli could have a long-term adverse impact on their cognitive and neurological function development. The biggest challenge of achieving good infant pain control is obtaining objective pain assessment when direct communication is lacking. For years, computer scientists have developed many different facial expression-centred machine learning (ML) methods for automatic infant pain assessment. Many of these ML algorithms showed rather satisfactory performance and have demonstrated good potential to be further enhanced for implementation in real-world clinical settings. To date, there is no prior research that has systematically summarised and compared the performance of these ML algorithms. Our proposed meta-analysis will provide the first comprehensive evidence on this topic to guide further ML algorithm development and clinical implementation., Methods and Analysis: We will search four major public electronic medical and computer science databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and IEEE Xplore Digital Library from January 2008 to present. All the articles will be imported into the Covidence platform for study eligibility screening and inclusion. Study-level extracted data will be stored in the Systematic Review Data Repository online platform. The primary outcome will be the prediction accuracy of the ML model. The secondary outcomes will be model utility measures including generalisability, interpretability and computational efficiency. All extracted outcome data will be imported into RevMan V.5.2.1 software and R V3.3.2 for analysis. Risk of bias will be summarised using the latest Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool., Ethics and Dissemination: This systematic review and meta-analysis will only use study-level data from public databases, thus formal ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated in the form of an official publication in a peer-reviewed journal and/or presentation at relevant conferences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019118784., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics., Design: Cross-sectional online survey., Setting and Participants: Corresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals., Main Outcome Measures: Perceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism)., Results: 4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics., Conclusions: We found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SS is a full-time employee of the BMJ Publishing Group and has access to all submission data and regularly undertakes research with its authors and reviewers. SM is a former employee of BMJ Publishing Group. EL receives salary support from The BMJ for her services as head of research. This is paid to her employing institution (the Brigham and Women’s Physician Organization). None of the authors work directly for BMJ Open or are involved in the decision-making process for articles submitted to BMJ Open. This paper was sent out for peer review in the usual way and treated in the same way as all submissions to the journal. TTH, JR and DBP have no relevant conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Delirium, which is prevalent in postcardiac surgical patients, is an acute brain dysfunction characterised by disturbances in attention, awareness and cognition not explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. The pathophysiology of delirium remains poorly understood. However, basic science and clinical studies suggest that sleep disturbance may be a modifiable risk factor for the development of delirium. Dexmedetomidine is a α-2A adrenergic receptor agonist medication that patterns the activity of various arousal nuclei similar to sleep. A single night-time loading dose of dexmedetomidine promotes non-rapid eye movement sleep stages N2 and N3 sleep. This trial hypothesises dexmedetomidine-induced sleep as pre-emptive therapy for postoperative delirium., Methods and Analysis: The MINDDS (Minimizing ICU Neurological Dysfunction with Dexmedetomidine-induced Sleep) trial is a 370-patient block-randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, single-site, parallel-arm superiority trial. Patients over 60 years old, undergoing cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass, will be randomised to receive a sleep-inducing dose of dexmedetomidine or placebo. The primary outcome is the incidence of delirium on postoperative day 1, assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method by staff blinded to the treatment assignment. To ensure that the study is appropriately powered for the primary outcome measure, patients will be recruited and randomised into the study until 370 patients receive the study intervention on postoperative day 0. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by in-person assessments and medical record review for in-hospital end points, and by telephone interview for 30-day, 90-day and 180-day end points. All trial outcomes will be evaluated using an intention-to-treat analysis plan. Hypothesis testing will be performed using a two-sided significance level (type I error) of α=0.05. Sensitivity analyses using the actual treatment received will be performed and compared with the intention-to-treat analysis results. Additional sensitivity analyses will assess the potential impact of missing data due to loss of follow-up., Ethics and Dissemination: The Partners Human Research Committee approved the MINDDS trial. Recruitment began in March 2017. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and popular media., Trial Registration Number: NCT02856594., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OA and ENB have a provisional patent application describing the use of alpha-2 agonists for promoting N3 sleep., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)