In a recent study, identifying and supporting patients' care goals was named the highest priority in hospital medicine. Although sepsis is one of the leading causes of death and postdischarge morbidity among hospitalized patients, little is known about how frequently care goals are assessed prior to discharge and adhered to in the 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. Evaluating a cohort of 679 high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we found that care goals were documented explicitly in a standardized tool in 130 patients; an additional 139 patients were identified using all available clinical documentation, resulting in only 269 (40%) patients with goals that could be ascertained from the electronic health record (EHR). Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity (35%), function (52%), and comfort (12%). Based on expert review of the care provided during the 90 days subsequent to discharge, goal-concordant care was identified in 184 (68%) cases for which goals were specified. Documentation of goals in a standardized EHR tool was associated with increased likelihood of receiving goal-concordant care (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5). Hospitalization and peridischarge time points represent important opportunities to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors.

Background

When subgroup analyses are not correctly analyzed and reported, incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and inappropriate treatments provided. Despite the increased recognition of the importance of subgroup analysis, little information exists regarding the prevalence, appropriateness, and study characteristics that influence subgroup analysis. The objective of this study is to determine (1) if the use of subgroup analyses and multivariable risk indices has increased, (2) whether statistical methodology has improved over time, and (3) which study characteristics predict subgroup analysis.

Methods

We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five high-impact general medical journals during three time periods. Data from these articles were abstracted in duplicate using standard forms and a standard protocol. Subgroup analysis was defined as reporting any subgroup effect. Appropriate methods for subgroup analysis included a formal test for heterogeneity or interaction across treatment-by-covariate groups. We used logistic regression to determine the variables significantly associated with any subgroup analysis or, among RCTs reporting subgroup analyses, using appropriate methodology.

Results

The final sample of 416 articles reported 437 RCTs, of which 270 (62 %) reported subgroup analysis. Among these, 185 (69 %) used appropriate methods to conduct such analyses. Subgroup analysis was reported in 62, 55, and 67 % of the articles from 2007, 2010, and 2013, respectively. The percentage using appropriate methods decreased over the three time points from 77 % in 2007 to 63 % in 2013 (p < 0.05). Significant predictors of reporting subgroup analysis included industry funding (OR 1.94 (95 % CI 1.17, 3.21)), sample size (OR 1.98 per quintile (1.64, 2.40), and a significant primary outcome (OR 0.55 (0.33, 0.92)). The use of appropriate methods to conduct subgroup analysis decreased by year (OR 0.88 (0.76, 1.00)) and was less common with industry funding (OR 0.35 (0.18, 0.70)). Only 33 (18 %) of the RCTs examined subgroup effects using a multivariable risk index.

Conclusions

While we found no significant increase in the reporting of subgroup analysis over time, our results show a significant decrease in the reporting of subgroup analyses using appropriate methods during recent years. Industry-sponsored trials may more commonly report subgroup analyses, but without utilizing appropriate methods. Suboptimal reporting of subgroup effects may impact optimal physician-patient decision-making.

Many people living with HIV (PLWHIV) state that they would be willing to take significant risks to be "cured" of the virus. However, how they interpret the word "cure" in this context is not clear. We used a randomized survey to examine whether PLWHIV had a different willingness to take a hypothetical HIV medication if it causes flu-like symptoms, but provides: (a) cure, (b) remission that was labeled "cure", or (c) remission. PLWHIV (n = 454) were more willing to take a medication that provided a "cure" versus a "remission" if the side effects lasted less than 1 year. PLWHIV were more willing to take a medication that provided a remission that was labeled "cure" versus a "remission" (p = 0.01) if the side effects lasted 2 weeks. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the impact of the word "cure" and ensure that PLWHIV fully understand the possible outcomes of their treatment options.

In this review, we seek to highlight how critical illness and critical care affect longer-term outcomes, to underline the contribution of ICU delirium to cognitive dysfunction several months after ICU discharge, to give new insights into ICU acquired weakness, to emphasize the importance of value-based healthcare, and to delineate the elements of family-centered care. This consensus of 29 also provides a perspective and a research agenda about post-ICU recovery.