Transfusion · 2024
Bleeding assessment following central venous catheter placement, a direct comparison of prospective and retrospective analyses.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Baarle Floor L F, van de Weerdt Emma K, Raasveld S Jorinde, Vlaar Alexander P J, Biemond Bart J, PACER Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reported bleeding incidences following central venous catheter (CVC) placement highly depend on methods of bleeding assessment. To determine the direction and magnitude of the bias associated with retrospective data collection, we used data from the PACER randomized controlled trial and a previous retrospective cohort study.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A patient-level comparison of CVC-related bleeding severity was made among (1) the prospectively collected clinical bleeding assessment of the PACER trial, (2) centralized assessment of CVC insertion site photographs, and (3) retrospective chart review. Interrater reliability for photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review was assessed using Cohen's κ. The magnitude of underreporting of both methods compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment at different cutoff points of clinically relevant bleeding was assessed using McNemar's test.
RESULTS: Interrater reliability was acceptable for both methods (κ = 0.583 and κ = 0.481 for photographic assessment and retrospective chart review, respectively). Photographic bleeding assessment led to significant underreporting of bleeding complications at all cutoff points. Retrospective chart review led to significant underreporting of minor bleeding complications, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.17 (0.044-0.51) for the cutoff point grade 1 (i.e., self-limiting or requiring at most 20 min of manual compression) or higher. There was no significant underreporting of major bleeding complications with retrospective chart review.
DISCUSSION: Centralized photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review lead to biased bleeding assessment compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A patient-level comparison of CVC-related bleeding severity was made among (1) the prospectively collected clinical bleeding assessment of the PACER trial, (2) centralized assessment of CVC insertion site photographs, and (3) retrospective chart review. Interrater reliability for photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review was assessed using Cohen's κ. The magnitude of underreporting of both methods compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment at different cutoff points of clinically relevant bleeding was assessed using McNemar's test.
RESULTS: Interrater reliability was acceptable for both methods (κ = 0.583 and κ = 0.481 for photographic assessment and retrospective chart review, respectively). Photographic bleeding assessment led to significant underreporting of bleeding complications at all cutoff points. Retrospective chart review led to significant underreporting of minor bleeding complications, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.17 (0.044-0.51) for the cutoff point grade 1 (i.e., self-limiting or requiring at most 20 min of manual compression) or higher. There was no significant underreporting of major bleeding complications with retrospective chart review.
DISCUSSION: Centralized photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review lead to biased bleeding assessment compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment.