Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.