Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Diarios para la recuperación de enfermedades graves

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010468.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 09 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Atención crítica y de emergencia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Amanda J Ullman

    Correspondencia a: Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research (AVATAR), Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Leanne M Aitken

    School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK

    National Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Intensive Care Unit, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia

  • Janice Rattray

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

  • Justin Kenardy

    School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia

  • Robyne Le Brocque

    Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine, Mayne Medical School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

  • Stephen MacGillivray

    evidence Synthesis Training and Research Group (eSTAR), School of Nursing and Health Sciences, Dundee Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

  • Alastair M Hull

    Department of Psychiatry, NHS Tayside, Perth, UK

Contributions of authors

Amanda J Ullman (AU), Leanne M Aitken (LA), Janice Rattray (JR), Justin Kenardy (JK) Robyne Le Brocque (RLB), Stephen MacGillivray (SM), Alastair M Hull (AH)

Conceiving the review: all authors

Co‐ordinating the review: AU

Undertaking manual searches: AU

Screening search results: AU and LA

Organizing retrieval of papers: AU

Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: AU and LA

Appraising quality of papers: AU, LA and RLB

Abstracting data from papers: AU, LA and RLB

Writing to authors of papers for additional information: AU

Providing additional data about papers: AU

Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: AU and LA

Data management for the review: AU

Entering data into Review Manager (RevMan 5.2): AU

RevMan statistical data: AU and SM

Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: AU

Interpretation of data: all authors

Statistical inferences: SM

Writing the review: all authors

Securing funding for the review: N/A

Performing previous work that was the foundation of the present study: all authors

Guarantor for the review (one author): AU

Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: AU

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • NH&MRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing Interventions, Griffith University, Australia.

  • Centre of Health Practice Innovation, Griffith University, Australia.

  • Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.

  • School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dundee, UK.

  • Department of Psychiatry, NHS Tayside, Perth, UK.

  • School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Australia.

  • Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Queensland, Australia.

  • Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, UK.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Amanda J Ullman: none known

Leanne M Aitken: none known

Janice Rattray: none known

Justin Kenardy: none known

Robyne Le Brocque: none known

Stephen MacGillivray: none known

Alastair M Hull: none known

Acknowledgements

We thank Jane Cracknell (Managing Editor, Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group) and Karen Hovhannisyan (Trials Search Co‐ordinator, Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group) for their assistance in the preparation of the protocol and review.

We would like to thank Bronagh Blackwood (content editor), Nathan Pace (statistical editor), Christina Jones, Megan Prictor, Louise Rose (peer reviewers), and Robert Wylie (consumer referee) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of this systematic review

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) has provided funding for this review from its Centre of Research Excellence scheme, which funds one or more of the authors.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Dec 09

Diaries for recovery from critical illness

Review

Amanda J Ullman, Leanne M Aitken, Janice Rattray, Justin Kenardy, Robyne Le Brocque, Stephen MacGillivray, Alastair M Hull

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010468.pub2

2013 Apr 30

Diaries for recovery from critical illness

Protocol

Amanda J Ullman, Leanne M Aitken, Janice Rattray, Justin Kenardy, Robyne Le Brocque, Stephen MacGillivray, Alastair M Hull

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010468

Differences between protocol and review

Due to the small number of studies contained within the review, we were unable to undertake the meta‐analyses or provide a summary of findings table planned in the protocol (Ullman 2013).

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. Diaries for the recovery from critical illness: summary of results from single studies

Outcomes

Study

Incidence

Number of participants

Quality of the evidence: GRADE

Risk of anxiety in patients recovering from admission to ICU

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond 1983)
Follow‐up: 3 weeks from initial assessment

Knowles 2009

Patient diary: 2 of 18 participants (11.1%) had the likely presence of clinically significant anxiety.

No patient diary: 7 of 18 participants (38.9%) had the likely presence of clinically significant anxiety.

36

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very low

1,2

Risk of depression in patients recovering from admission to ICU

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond 1983)
Follow‐up: 3 weeks from initial assessment

Knowles 2009

Patient diary: 3 of 18 participants (16.7%) had the likely presence of clinically significant depression.

No patient diary: 8 of 18 participants (44.4%) had the likely presence of clinically significant depression.

36

⊕⊝⊝⊝

very low

1,2

Risk of memory recall of ICU in patients recovering from admission to ICU

Intensive Care Unit Memory Tool (Jones 2000)
Follow‐up: 3 months from ICU admission

Jones 2010

Patient diary: 85 of 162 participants (55%) had recall of delusional ICU memories.

No patient diary: 81 of 160 participants (52%) had recall of delusional ICU memories.

322

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low

2

Post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in patients recovering from admission to ICU

Post‐Traumatic Stress Disorder‐Related Symptoms Screening Tool 14 (Twigg 2008)
Follow‐up: 3 months from ICU admission

Jones 2010

Patient diary: The median post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in the patient diary group was 24 (SD 11.6)3

No patient diary: The median post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in the no patient diary group was 24 (SD 11.6) 3

322

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low

2

Post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in family members of patients recovering from admission to ICU

Post‐Traumatic Stress Disorder‐Related Symptoms Screening Tool 14 (Twigg 2008)
Follow‐up: 3 months from ICU admission

Jones 2012

Patient diary: The median post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in the patient diary group was 19 (range 14 to 28) 3

No patient diary: The median post‐traumatic stress symptomatology in the no diary group was 28 (range 14 to 38) 3

30

⊕⊕⊝⊝

low

2

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

CI: Confidence interval

1 Results are from a single study at risk of bias regarding blinding of outcome assessment and participants.
2 Results are from a single study with few patients and few events and thus have wide confidence intervals around the estimate of the effect.
3 Confidence intervals not provided.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Diaries for the recovery from critical illness: summary of results from single studies
Ir a la tabla de la revisión