Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care Med. 2018 May;46(5):743-748. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003000.

The Randomized Educational Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Diagnosis Study: A Trial to Improve the Radiographic Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Author information

1
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
2
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
3
School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
4
Groupe hospitalier des Hopitaux Universitaires de l'Est Parisien, Paris, France.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome have been criticized for poor reliability. Our objective was to test an educational intervention to improve the radiographic identification of acute respiratory distress syndrome by participants in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study.

DESIGN:

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS:

Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study centers.

SUBJECTS:

Study coordinators in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure study.

INTERVENTIONS:

Participants were randomized to either an online training module followed by a test module (intervention) or test module followed by training module (control).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

The primary outcome was the number of radiographs correctly identified as meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome on an online test module (out of 11). Prespecified secondary analyses included a comparison of agreement between the groups and subgroup analyses by profession, age, years of experience, and stated familiarity with diagnostic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Four-hundred sixty-three study participants consented to participate. There was no effect of the intervention on correct answers by participants (proportion correct 58% [intervention] vs 56% [control]; p = 0.15), or in any subgroup analyses. Overall agreement between raters was 0.296 for the intervention and 0.272 for the control (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Participant recognition of radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome was low, with poor agreement. This was not impacted by an educational intervention designed to improve accuracy of identification of radiographic criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center