4.6 Review

Optimal target blood pressure in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048512

关键词

adult intensive & critical care; change management; adverse events

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to assess the certainty of evidence in determining the optimal target of MAP control for patients with vasodilatory shock in critically ill settings through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Introduction The optimal target of mean arterial pressure (MAP) for better outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock remains a matter of debate. Although catecholamines are generally used to maintain target blood pressure in hypotensive patients with vasodilatory shock, the adverse effects of catecholamines must also be considered. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the certainty of evidence determining the optimal target of MAP control for patients with vasodilatory shock in critically ill settings. Methods and analysis This study protocol was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will include only RCTs that evaluated the two different comparators for target MAP to be maintained for clinical outcomes of all-cause mortality: organ dysfunction and adverse events in critically ill adult patients with vasodilatory shock. We will search the electronic bibliographic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in November 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article reviews and extract study data. We will report study characteristics and assess methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. If pooling is appropriate, we will calculate relative risks with 95% CIs for all outcome measures. Clinical and methodological subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore heterogeneity. Overall certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Ethics and dissemination This study will not involve primary data collection, and formal ethics approval will therefore not be required. We aim to publish this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据