Meta-analysis handles randomized trials with no outcome events in both treatment and control arms inconsistently, including them when risk difference (RD) is the effect measure but excluding them when relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) are used. This study examined the influence of such trials on pooled treatment effects. Analysis with and without zero total event trials of three illustrative published meta-analyses with a range of proportions of zero total event trials, treatment effects, and heterogeneity using inverse variance weighting and random effects that incorporates between-study heterogeneity. Including zero total event trials in meta-analyses moves the pooled estimate of treatment effect closer to nil, decreases its confidence interval and decreases between-study heterogeneity. For RR and OR, inclusion of such trials causes small changes, even when they comprise the large majority of included trials. For RD, the changes are more substantial, and in extreme cases can eliminate a statistically significant effect estimate. To include all relevant data regardless of effect measure chosen, reviewers should also include zero total event trials when calculating pooled estimates using OR and RR.

Objective To review the literature on the use of inhaled nitric oxide to treat acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) and to summarise the effects of nitric oxide, compared with placebo or usual care without nitric oxide, in adults and children with ALI or ARDS. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and CENTRAL (to October 2006), proceedings from four conferences, and additional information from authors of 10 trials. Review methods Two reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised controlled trials comparing nitric oxide with control and extracted data related to study methods, clinical and physiological outcomes, and adverse events. Main outcome measures Mortality, duration of ventilation, oxygenation, pulmonary arterial pressure, adverse events. Results 12 trials randomly assigning 1237 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality was good. Using random effects models, we found no significant effect of nitric oxide on hospital mortality (risk ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.30), duration of ventilation, or ventilator-free days. On day one of treatment, nitric oxide increased the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) (13%, 4% to 23%) and decreased the oxygenation index (14%, 2% to 25%). Some evidence suggested that improvements in oxygenation persisted until day four. There was no effect on mean pulmonary arterial pressure. Patients receiving nitric oxide had an increased risk of developing renal dysfunction (1.50, 1.11 to 2.02). Conclusions Nitric oxide is associated with limited improvement in oxygenation in patients with ALI or ARDS but confers no mortality benefit and may cause harm. We do not recommend its routine use in these severely ill patients.

Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes traditionally uses mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD; mean difference in pooled standard deviation (SD) units). We recently used an alternative ratio of mean values (RoM) method, calculating RoM for each study and estimating its variance by the delta method. SMD and RoM allow pooling of outcomes expressed in different units and comparisons of effect sizes across interventions, but RoM interpretation does not require knowledge of the pooled SD, a quantity generally unknown to clinicians.

Introduction: The understanding of coagulopathies in trauma has increased interest in thromboelastography (TEG®) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM®), which promptly evaluate the entire clotting process and may guide blood product therapy. Our objective was to review the evidence for their role in diagnosing early coagulopathies, guiding blood transfusion, and reducing mortality in injured patients. Methods: We considered observational studies and randomized controlled trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) to February 2014 that examined TEG®/ROTEM® in adult trauma patients. We extracted data on demographics, diagnosis of early coagulopathies, blood transfusion, and mortality. We assessed methodologic quality by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Results: Fifty-five studies (12,489 patients) met inclusion criteria, including 38 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, two before-after studies, and no randomized trials. Methodologic quality was moderate (mean NOS score, 6.07; standard deviation, 0.49). With QUADAS-2, only three of 47 studies (6.4%) had a low risk of bias in all domains (patient selection, index test, reference standard and flow and timing); 37 of 47 studies (78.8%) had low concerns regarding applicability. Studies investigated TEG®/ROTEM® for diagnosis of early coagulopathies (n = 40) or for associations with blood-product transfusion (n = 25) or mortality (n = 24). Most (n = 52) were single-center studies. Techniques examined included rapid TEG® (n =12), ROTEM® (n = 18), TEG® (n = 23), or both TEG® and rapid TEG® (n = 2). Many TEG®/ROTEM® measurements were associated with early coagulopathies, including some (hypercoagulability, hyperfibrinolysis, platelet dysfunction) not assessed by routine screening coagulation tests. Standard measures of diagnostic accuracy were inconsistently reported. Many abnormalities predicted the need for massive transfusion and death, but predictive performance was not consistently superior to routine tests. One observational study suggested that a ROTEM® -based transfusion algorithm reduced blood-product transfusion, but TEG®/ROTEM®-based resuscitation was not associated with lower mortality in most studies. Conclusions: Limited evidence from observational data suggest that TEG®/ROTEM® tests diagnose early trauma coagulopathy and may predict blood-product transfusion and mortality in trauma. Effects on blood-product transfusion, mortality, and other patient-important outcomes remain unproven in randomized trials.

Introduction: Telemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes. Methods: We searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I ² (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance). Results: Of 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I ² = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I ² = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I ² = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I ² = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I ² > 90% for both). Conclusions: Telemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.

Rationale: Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are designed to simulate conditions after extubation, and it is essential to understand the physiologic impact of different methods. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and pooled measures reflecting patient respiratory effort among studies comparing SBT methods in a meta-analysis. Methods: We searched Medline, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science from inception to January 2016 to identify randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials reporting physiologic measurements of respiratory effort (pressure–time product) or work of breathing during at least two SBT techniques. Secondary outcomes included the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), and effort measured before and after extubation. The quality of physiologic measurement and research design was appraised for each study. Outcomes were analyzed using ratio of means. Measurements and Main Results: Among 4,138 citations, 16 studies (n = 239) were included. Compared with T-piece, pressure support ventilation significantly reduced work by 30% (ratio of means [RoM], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57–0.86), effort by 30% (RoM, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60–0.82), and RSBI by 20% (RoM, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75–0.86). Continuous positive airway pressure had significantly lower pressure-time product by 18% (RoM, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68–0.999) compared with T-piece, and reduced RSBI by 16% (RoM, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74–0.95). Studies comparing SBTs with the postextubation period demonstrated that pressure support induced significantly lower effort and RSBI; T-piece reduced effort, but not the work, compared with postextubation. Work, effort, and RSBI measured while intubated on the ventilator with continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O were no different than extubation. Conclusions: Pressure support reduces respiratory effort compared with T-piece. Continuous positive airway pressure of 0 cm H2O and T-piece more accurately reflect the physiologic conditions after extubation.