Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39162653›Full record

SynthesisCritical care explorations2024

Impact of Rounding Checklists on the Outcomes of Patients Admitted to ICUs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Khrystia M MacKinnon, Samuel Seshadri, Jonathan F Mailman, Eric Sy

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Standardized ward rounds in the intensive care unit].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Khrystia M MacKinnonCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.
Samuel SeshadriCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.
Jonathan F MailmanCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.
Eric SyCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5033-797

Funding

University of Saskatchewan Dean’s Summer Student Grant 2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of ICU rounding checklists on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were searched from inception to May 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of rounding checklists to no checklists were included. Other article types were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU and 30-day mortality; hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS); duration of mechanical ventilation; and frequency of catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Additional outcomes included healthcare provider perceptions of checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled estimates were obtained using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis model. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. There were 30 included studies (including > 32,000 patients) in the review. Using an ICU rounding checklist was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92; 12 observational studies; 17,269 patients; I2 = 48%; very low certainty of evidence). The use of an ICU rounding checklist was also associated with reduced ICU mortality (8 observational studies, p = 0.006), 30-day mortality (2 observational studies, p < 0.001), hospital LOS (11 observational studies, p = 0.02), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) (6 observational studies, p = 0.01), and CLABSI (6 observational studies, p = 0.02). Otherwise, there were no significant differences with using ICU rounding checklists on other patient-related outcomes. Healthcare providers' perceptions of checklists were generally positive.

conclusionsThe use of an ICU rounding checklist may improve in-hospital mortality, as well as other important patient-related outcomes. However, well-designed randomized studies are necessary to increase the certainty of evidence and determine which elements should be included in an ICU rounding checklist.

Indexed as

ChecklistHospital MortalityIntensive Care UnitsHumansLength of StayTeaching Rounds

Identifiers

PMID39162653
PMCPMC11338257

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.