@article{NotzLeeMengeretal.2022, author = {Notz, Quirin and Lee, Zheng-Yii and Menger, Johannes and Elke, Gunnar and Hill, Aileen and Kranke, Peter and Roeder, Daniel and Lotz, Christopher and Meybohm, Patrick and Heyland, Daren K. and Stoppe, Christian}, title = {Omega-6 sparing effects of parenteral lipid emulsions-an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients}, series = {Critical Care}, volume = {26}, journal = {Critical Care}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13054-022-03896-3}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299710}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background Parenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. Results 1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95\% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95\% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95\% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95\% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95\% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care. Conclusion Overall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact.}, language = {en} } @article{HelmerHottenrottRodemersetal.2022, author = {Helmer, Philipp and Hottenrott, Sebastian and Rodemers, Philipp and Leppich, Robert and Helwich, Maja and Pryss, R{\"u}diger and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Winkler, Bernd E. and Sammeth, Michael}, title = {Accuracy and Systematic Biases of Heart Rate Measurements by Consumer-Grade Fitness Trackers in Postoperative Patients: Prospective Clinical Trial}, series = {Journal of Medical Internet Research}, volume = {24}, journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research}, number = {12}, doi = {10.2196/42359}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299679}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: Over the recent years, technological advances of wrist-worn fitness trackers heralded a new era in the continuous monitoring of vital signs. So far, these devices have primarily been used for sports. Objective: However, for using these technologies in health care, further validations of the measurement accuracy in hospitalized patients are essential but lacking to date. Methods: We conducted a prospective validation study with 201 patients after moderate to major surgery in a controlled setting to benchmark the accuracy of heart rate measurements in 4 consumer-grade fitness trackers (Apple Watch 7, Garmin Fenix 6 Pro, Withings ScanWatch, and Fitbit Sense) against the clinical gold standard (electrocardiography). Results: All devices exhibited high correlation (r≥0.95; P<.001) and concordance (rc≥0.94) coefficients, with a relative error as low as mean absolute percentage error <5\% based on 1630 valid measurements. We identified confounders significantly biasing the measurement accuracy, although not at clinically relevant levels (mean absolute error<5 beats per minute). Conclusions: Consumer-grade fitness trackers appear promising in hospitalized patients for monitoring heart rate.}, language = {en} } @article{HackenbroichKrankeMeybohmetal.2022, author = {Hackenbroich, Samantha and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie}, title = {Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials}, series = {Systematic Reviews}, volume = {11}, journal = {Systematic Reviews}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13643-022-02048-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299660}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review's interpretation. Methods Conference abstracts were searched in the review's excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review's eligibility criteria, Cochrane 'risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated. Results We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14\% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86\% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review's eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71\% (55/77), age of participants in 56\% (43/77), and outcome details in 46\% (36/77). A total of 73\% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62\% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24\% (IQR, 18 to 29\%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low. Conclusions Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review's narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigStadlerPoppetal.2023, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Stadler, David and Popp, Maria and Kranke, Peter and Fichtner, Falk and Schmaderer, Christoph and Renders, Lutz and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Assali, Tarek and Platen, Louise and Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Steckelberg, Anke and Pfadenhauer, Lisa and Haller, Bernhard and Fuetterer, Cornelia and Seeber, Christian and Schaaf, Christian}, title = {Locating medical information during an infodemic: information seeking behavior and strategies of health-care workers in Germany}, series = {Healthcare}, volume = {11}, journal = {Healthcare}, number = {11}, issn = {2227-9032}, doi = {10.3390/healthcare11111602}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-319306}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57\%), TV (57\%), and e-mail/newsletters (46\%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63\%), e-mail/newsletters (56\%), and professional journals (55\%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66\%), videos (45\%), and webinars (40\%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66\%), abstracts (62\%), webinars (48\%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63\%) vs. physician HCWs (70\%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigBraunischKrankeetal.2021, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Allwang, Christine and Frank, Tamara and Meerpohl, Joerg Johannes and Haller, Bernhard and Schmaderer, Christoph}, title = {COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in germany}, series = {Vaccines}, volume = {9}, journal = {Vaccines}, number = {7}, issn = {2076-393X}, doi = {10.3390/vaccines9070777}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242627}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95\% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7\%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigFrankSchmadereretal.2022, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Frank, Tamara and Schmaderer, Christoph and Braunisch, Matthias C. and Renders, Lutz and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Meerpohl, Joerg J. and Haller, Bernhard and Allwang, Christine}, title = {COVID-19 Vaccines: Fear of side effects among German health care workers}, series = {Vaccines}, volume = {10}, journal = {Vaccines}, number = {5}, issn = {2076-393X}, doi = {10.3390/vaccines10050689}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270561}, year = {2022}, abstract = {(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.}, language = {en} } @article{KurrekMorganHowardetal.2015, author = {Kurrek, Matt M. and Morgan, Pamela and Howard, Steven and Kranke, Peter and Calhoun, Aaron and Hui, Joshua and Kiss, Alex}, title = {Simulation as a New Tool to Establish Benchmark Outcome Measures in Obstetrics}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {10}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0131064}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151646}, pages = {e0131064}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Background There are not enough clinical data from rare critical events to calculate statistics to decide if the management of actual events might be below what could reasonably be expected (i.e. was an outlier). Objectives In this project we used simulation to describe the distribution of management times as an approach to decide if the management of a simulated obstetrical crisis scenario could be considered an outlier. Design Twelve obstetrical teams managed 4 scenarios that were previously developed. Relevant outcome variables were defined by expert consensus. The distribution of the response times from the teams who performed the respective intervention was graphically displayed and median and quartiles calculated using rank order statistics. Results Only 7 of the 12 teams performed chest compressions during the arrest following the 'cannot intubate/cannot ventilate' scenario. All other outcome measures were performed by at least 11 of the 12 teams. Calculation of medians and quartiles with 95\% CI was possible for all outcomes. Confidence intervals, given the small sample size, were large. Conclusion We demonstrated the use of simulation to calculate quantiles for management times of critical event. This approach could assist in deciding if a given performance could be considered normal and also point to aspects of care that seem to pose particular challenges as evidenced by a large number of teams not performing the expected maneuver. However sufficiently large sample sizes (i.e. from a national data base) will be required to calculate acceptable confidence intervals and to establish actual tolerance limits.}, language = {en} }