Search

Introduction: Severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a well-known factor consistently associated with impaired cognitive outcomes. Regarding reported benefits on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, the potential adverse effects of high-dose docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation on this short-term neonatal morbidity need further investigations in infants born very preterm. This study will determine whether high-dose DHA enteral supplementation during the neonatal period is associated with the risk of severe BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) compared with control, in contemporary cohorts of preterm infants born at less than 29 weeks of gestation., Methods and Analysis: As part of an Australian-Canadian collaboration, we will conduct an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials targeting infants born at less than 29 weeks of gestation and evaluating the effect of high-dose DHA enteral supplementation in the neonatal period compared with a control. Primary outcome will be severe grades of BPD (yes/no) at 36 weeks' PMA harmonised according to a recent definition that predicts early childhood morbidities. Other outcomes will be survival without severe BPD, death, BPD severity grades, serious brain injury, severe retinopathy of prematurity, patent ductus arteriosus and necrotising enterocolitis requiring surgery, sepsis, combined neonatal morbidities and growth. Severe BPD will be compared between groups using a multivariate generalised estimating equations log-binomial regression model. Subgroup analyses are planned for gestational age, sex, small-for-gestational age, presence of maternal chorioamnionitis and mode of delivery., Ethics and Dissemination: The conduct of each trial was approved by institutional research ethics boards and written informed consent was obtained from participating parents. A collaboration and data sharing agreement will be signed between participating authors and institutions. This IPD meta-analysis will document the role of DHA in nutritional management of BPD. Findings will be disseminated through conferences, media interviews and publications to peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023431063., Trial Registration Number: NCT05915806., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IsM, PML, AJM, CTC, IbM, TRS and MM were investigators of RCTs expected to be included in this IPD meta-analysis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Evidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality., Methods and Analysis: We will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers., Prospero Registration Number: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care., Background: Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care., Methods: Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation., Results: A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria., Conclusions: Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.