RESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the admission of a high number of patients to the ICU, generally due to severe respiratory failure. Since the appearance of the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, at the end of 2019, in China, a huge number of treatment recommendations for this entity have been published, not always supported by sufficient scientific evidence or with methodological rigor necessary. Thanks to the efforts of different groups of researchers, we currently have the results of clinical trials, and other types of studies, of higher quality. We consider it necessary to create a document that includes recommendations that collect this evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, but also aspects that other guidelines have not considered and that we consider essential in the management of critical patients with COVID-19. For this, a drafting committee has been created, made up of members of the SEMICYUC Working Groups more directly related to different specific aspects of the management of these patients.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Estado Terminal/terapia , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the admission of a high number of patients to the ICU, generally due to severe respiratory failure. Since the appearance of the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, at the end of 2019, in China, a huge number of treatment recommendations for this entity have been published, not always supported by sufficient scientific evidence or with methodological rigor necessary. Thanks to the efforts of different groups of researchers, we currently have the results of clinical trials, and other types of studies, of higher quality. We consider it necessary to create a document that includes recommendations that collect this evidence regarding the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, but also aspects that other guidelines have not considered and that we consider essential in the management of critical patients with COVID-19. For this, a drafting committee has been created, made up of members of the SEMICYUC Working Groups more directly related to different specific aspects of the management of these patients.
RESUMO
Objetivo Conocer el destino de los trabajos rechazados en Medicina Intensiva (MI) en el período del 2015 al 2017 con seguimiento hasta el 2019. Diseño Estudio retrospectivo observacional. Ámbito Publicaciones en revistas biomédicas. Participantes Manuscritos rechazados en la revista Medicina Intensiva. Intervenciones Ninguna Variables de interés Tiempo de publicación, factor de impacto (FI), citas generadas y variables asociadas con la publicación. Resultados De 344 originales y 263 cartas científicas, se rechazaron 420 (69,2%). Se publicaron después 205 (48,8%) y 66 de ellos generaron 180 citas. El FI de las revistas fue menor en 173 casos (84,4%). En 21, el número de citas válidas para FI fue mayor que el FI de MI. El origen del manuscrito odds ratio (OR) 2,11 (IC 95% 1,29 a 3,46), la mujer como autora OR 1,58 (IC 95% 1,03 a 2,44), que estuviera en lengua inglesa OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1,41 a 4,0) y que el artículo hubiera pasado a revisores OR 1,71 (IC 95% 1,10 a 2,66) se asociaron con mayor tasa de publicación en revistas indexadas en PubMed. Conclusiones Los artículos rechazados en MI tienen una tasa media de publicación en otras revistas, principalmente con menos FI y generando menor número de citas que el FI de MI. (AU)
Objective To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019. Design Retrospective observational study. Setting Biomedical journals publication. Participants Rejected manuscripts in MI journal. Interventions None. Main variables of interest Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication. Results The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29 3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database. Conclusions The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Fator de Impacto , Revisão por Pares , Bibliometria , Identidade de GêneroRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Biomedical journals publication. PARTICIPANTS: Rejected manuscripts in MI journal. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication. RESULTS: The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29-3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database. CONCLUSIONS: The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.
Assuntos
Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Editoração , Feminino , Humanos , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Idioma , PubMedRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To know the fate of the rejected manuscripts in Medicina Intensiva journal (MI) from 2015 to 2017 with surveillance until 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Biomedical journals publication. PARTICIPANTS: Rejected manuscripts in MI journal. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Time of publication, impact factor (IF), generated citations and variables associated to publication. RESULTS: The 69% (420) of analyzed articles (344 originals and 263 scientific letters) were rejected, and 205 (48.8%) were subsequently published, with 180 citations of 66 articles. Journal IF was lower in 173 (84.4%) articles. The number of FI-valid citations was higher than the FI of MI in 21 articles. Origin of manuscript OR 2,11 (IC 95% 1.29 - 3.46), female author OR 1.58 (IC 95% 1.03-2.44), english language OR 2,38 (IC 95% 1.41-4.0) and reviewed papers OR 1.71 (IC 95% 1.10-2.66) were associated to publication in PubMed database. CONCLUSIONS: The rejected articles in MI have a mean publication rate in other journals. Most of these articles are published in journals with less IF and fewer citations than the IF of MI.
RESUMO
Permanent cardiac pacing is a widely recognized therapy used for the treatment of several types of bradycardia, atrioventricular (AV) block and sinoatrial node disease mainly. In the beginning, implantable cardiac pacemakers stimulated just one cardiac chamber and right ventricule pacing were the most frequently used devices. In the 1980s, pacemaker's technology focus on restoring AV synchrony, named <
Assuntos
Marca-Passo Artificial , Arritmias Cardíacas/epidemiologia , Arritmias Cardíacas/terapia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Estudos Cross-Over , Desenho de Equipamento , Sistema de Condução Cardíaco/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Marca-Passo Artificial/efeitos adversos , Marca-Passo Artificial/economia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Síncope/etiologia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
La estimulación cardíaca permanente constituye una terapia ampliamente reconocida en el tratamiento de varios tipos de bradicardia, fundamentalmente el bloqueo auriculoventricular y la enfermedad del nodo sinusal. Inicialmente, los marcapasos implantados estimulaban una sola cámara cardíaca, siendo utilizados más frecuentemente los dispositivos de estimulación en el ventrículo derecho. En los años 80, el desarrollo tecnológico del marcapasos se centró en el mantenimiento de la sincronía auriculoventricular, denominada «estimulación fisiológica» del corazón, lo que permitió la aparición de marcapasos de doble cámara (DDD, DDDR). A pesar de las ventajas teóricas de estos dispositivos bicamerales, la implantación es más compleja y su precio es más elevado. Por este motivo, el modo óptimo de selección del marcapasos continúa siendo motivo de debate. En la actualidad, los resultados disponibles de los múltiples estudios que analizan los beneficios clínicos y fisiológicos de los diferentes modos de estimulación permiten concluir que los marcapasos fisiológicos reducen el riesgo de desarrollar fibrilación auricular pero no mejoran la supervivencia ni reducen el riesgo de accidente vascular cerebral. Por otro lado, la reducción del síndrome de marcapasos no es un hallazgo constante en todos los estudios. En nuestra práctica clínica, en el momento de decidir la selección del modo de estimulación del marcapasos deberemos considerar estos resultados junto a otros factores como son las características del paciente (edad, enfermedades asociadas, expectativa de vida). Asimismo, los datos derivados de los análisis coste-efectividad deberían integrarse en la información disponible para la toma de decisiones
Permanent cardiac pacing is a widely recognized therapy used for the treatment of several types of bradycardia, atrioventricular (AV) block and sinoatrial node disease mainly. In the beginning, implantable cardiac pacemakers stimulated just one cardiac chamber and right ventricule pacing were the most frequently used devices. In the 1980s, pacemaker's technology focus on restoring AV synchrony, named «physiologic» cardiac pacing, allowing the development of dual-chamber pacemakers (DDD, DDDR). Even though theoretical advantages of dual-chamber devices, its implantation is more complicated and expensive. For these reasons, the selection of the optimum mode of pacing is still controversial. Nowadays, available results from many trials that analyze clinical and physiological benefits of the different pacing modes, allow us to conclude that physiologic pacemakers reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation but do not improve survival and do not reduce the risk of stroke. By other hand, the reduction of pacemaker syndrome is not a constant finding in all the trials. In our clinical practice, when we have to select the pacing mode we have to take in account these results together with other factors as patient's characteristics (age, comorbility and life expectansy). Also, data from cost-effectiveness analysis should be added to the available information for the making decision