Search

Objective: To evaluate outcomes of preterm infants <26 weeks gestational age (GA) following postdelivery extensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) compared with airway and breathing support (ABS)., Study Design: Retrospective review of Canadian Neonatal Network data during January 2010 to December 2016. The primary outcome was death or severe morbidity (intraventricular hemorrhage ≥grade 3 or periventricular leucomalacia, retinopathy of prematurity ≥stage 3, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or necrotizing enterocolitis)., Result: Among 3633 infants analyzed, 433 (11.9%) received ECPR. In multivariable analysis, death or severe morbidity was higher in the ECPR versus ABS group [adjusted odds ratio 2.26 (95% confidence interval 1.49, 3.43)]. The majority of the difference was due to increased mortality, which occurred mostly during the first week of life., Conclusion: These data from a recent cohort of infants near the limits of viability may be useful for prognostication for health care providers and counseling of parents.

In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We evaluated the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Study Design and Setting: On completing two training exercises, participants worked independently as individual raters to assess the QoE of 16 outcomes. After recording their initial impression using a global rating, raters graded the QoE following the GRADE approach. Subsequently, randomly paired raters submitted a consensus rating., Results: The IRR without using the GRADE approach for two individual raters was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.21-0.42) among Health Research Methodology students (n = 10) and 0.27 (95% CI = 0.19-0.37) among the GRADE working group members (n = 15). The corresponding IRR of the GRADE approach in assessing the QoE was significantly higher, that is, 0.66 (95% CI = 0.56-0.75) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.61-0.79), respectively. The IRR further increased for three (0.80 [95% CI = 0.73-0.86] and 0.74 [95% CI = 0.65-0.81]) or four raters (0.84 [95% CI = 0.78-0.89] and 0.79 [95% CI = 0.71-0.85]). The IRR did not improve when QoE was assessed through a consensus rating., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that trained individuals using the GRADE approach improves reliability in comparison to intuitive judgments about the QoE and that two individual raters can reliably assess the QoE using the GRADE system., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)