Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37986015›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2023

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinimetric properties of the core outcome measurement instruments for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness (CONCISE).

T W Davies, E Kelly, R J J van Gassel, M C G van de Poll, J Gunst, M P Casaer, K B Christopher, J C Preiser, A Hill, K Gundogan and 20 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07228780 (Impact of Resistance Training With and Without Venous Occlusion on Strength and Function Post Hand Burn), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07228780 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Resistance Training With and Without Venous Occlusion on Strength and Function Post Hand Burn

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled34ConditionsHand BurnArmsresistance exercise with venous occlusion, traditional resistance exercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors at 20 institutions in 12 countries.

T W Davies *Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK. thomas.davies6@nhs.net.
E Kelly *Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
R J J van GasselDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
M C G van de PollDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J GunstClinical Department and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
M P CasaerClinical Department and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
K B ChristopherDivision of Renal Medicine, Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
J C PreiserMedical Direction, Erasme University Hospital, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
A HillDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
K GundoganDivision of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey.
A Reintam-BlaserDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
A-F RousseauDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospital of Liège, Liege, Belgium.
C HodgsonAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 3/553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
D M NeedhamOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Research Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
S J SchallerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
T McClellandFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
J J PilkingtonCentre for Bioscience, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester, UK.
C M SevinDepartment of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
P E WischmeyerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC, Box 3094 Mail # 41, 2301 Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 5692 HAFS27710, USA.
Z Y LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
D GovilInstitute of Critical Care and Anesthesia, Medanta: The Medicty, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
L ChappleAdelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
L DenehySchool of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
J C Montejo-GonzálezInstituto de Investigación I+12, Hospital Universitario, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
B TaylorDepartment of Research for Patient Care Services, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA.
D E BearDepartment of Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
R M PearseFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
A McNellyFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
J ProwleFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Z A PuthuchearyFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBRoyal London Hospital · GBKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLBarnes-Jewish Hospital · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDuke University · USErciyes University · TRGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHospital Universitario 12 De Octubre · ESJohns Hopkins Medicine · USManchester Metropolitan University · GBMedanta The Medicity · INPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AURWTH Aachen University · DETechnical University of Munich · DEThe Alfred Hospital · AUUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Lucerne · CH

Funding

National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Fellowship Award Programme 2021-19-009National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Pre-Doctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship Award Programme NIHR302695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE.

methodsFour electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted.

resultsA total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high.

conclusionsVariable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness.

trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessHand StrengthActivities of Daily LivingAdultHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareTreatment Outcome(3–5) ClinimetricCore outcome setCritical illnessNutrition

Identifiers

PMID37986015
PMCPMC10662687
OpenAlexW4388824950

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.