Critical Care Journals Research Articles

Impact of Altmetrics in evaluation of scientific journals, research outputs and scientists' careers: Views of editors of high impact anaesthesia, critical care and pain medicine journals.

Background and Aims:Altmetrics represent the attention of an article drawn from social and mainstream media. The aim of this survey was to investigate the views of editors of high-impact journals on the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), the number derived from an automated algorithm including a weighted count of mainstream news and social media sources.Methods:A questionnaire related to the AAS was sent to the editors of high-impact journals, namely Anaesthesia, Critical Care Medicine (CCM) and Pain Medicine (PM). Eleven questions were related to the possible benefits and flaws of Altmetrics.Results:Of the 1,381 editors asked, 126 answered. The overall answers showed that 76% of the editors were familiar with Altmetrics, 28% knew how AAS is calculated, 12% believed that AAS should replace traditional bibliometrics, 34% favoured AAS for journal ranking, 40% believed that AAS should be used to assess an article, 44% felt that AAS should be included in researchers’ curriculum vitae and 22% felt that it should be considered for grants. Sixty-two percent of editors believed that AAS is vulnerable to manipulations, 60% proposed improvement and 16% abandonment. Positive answers were similar across the fields, except for journal ranking. Fifty-four percent of editors of the CCM journals favoured journal ranking using AAS versus 28% and 26% editors of anaesthesia and PM journals (P = 0.025 and P = 0.006, respectively).Conclusion:A high percentage of editors believed that AAS should be used to assess scholarly output and that it should be included in the researchers’ curriculum vitae. Sixty percent of responders supported the improvement of AAS.

A multivariate model for successful publication of intensive care medicine randomized controlled trials in the highest impact factor journals: the SCOTI score

BackgroundCritical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often published in high-impact journals, whether general journals [the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)] or critical care journals [Intensive Care Medicine (ICM), the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), Critical Care Medicine (CCM)]. As rejection occurs in up to 97% of cases, it might be appropriate to assess pre-submission probability of being published. The objective of this study was to develop and internally validate a simplified score predicting whether an ongoing trial stands a chance of being published in high-impact general journals.MethodsA cohort of critical care RCTs published between 1999 and 2018 in the three highest impact medical journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or the three highest impact critical care journals (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM) was split into two samples (derivation cohort, validation cohort) to develop and internally validate the simplified score. Primary outcome was journal of publication assessed as high-impact general journal (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA) or critical care journal (ICM, AJRCCM, CCM).ResultsA total of 968 critical care RCTs were included in the predictive cohort and split into a derivation cohort (n = 510) and a validation cohort (n = 458). In the derivation cohort, the sample size (P value < 0.001), the number of centers involved (P value = 0.01), mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.002) or a composite item including mortality as primary outcome (P value = 0.004), and topic [ventilation (P value < 0.001) or miscellaneous (P value < 0.001)] were independent factors predictive of publication in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals. The SCOTI score (Sample size, Centers, Outcome, Topic, and International score) was developed with an area under the ROC curve of 0.84 (95% Confidence Interval, 0.80–0.88) in validation by split sample.ConclusionsThe SCOTI score, developed and validated by split sample, accurately predicts the chances of a critical care RCT being published in high-impact general journals, compared to high-impact critical care journals.

Who am I? Narratives as a window to transformative moments in critical care.

Critical care clinicians practice a liminal medicine at the border between life and death, witnessing suffering and tragedy which cannot fail to impact the clinicians themselves. Clinicians' professional identity is predicated upon their iterative efforts to articulate and contextualize these experiences, while a failure to do so may lead to burnout. This journey of self-discovery is illuminated by clinician narratives which capture key moments in building their professional identity. We analyzed a collection of narratives by critical care clinicians to determine which experiences most profoundly impacted their professional identity formation. After surveying 30 critical care journals, we identified one journal that published 84 clinician narratives since 2013; these constituted our data source. A clinician educator, an art historian, and an anthropologist analyzed these pieces using a narrative analysis technique identifying major themes and subthemes. Once the research team agreed on a thematic structure, a clinician-ethicist and a trainee read all the pieces for analytic validation. The main theme that emerged across all these pieces was the experience of existing at the heart of the dynamic tension between life and death. We identified three further sub-themes: the experience of bridging the existential divide between dissimilar worlds and contexts, fulfilling divergent roles, and the concurrent experience of feeling dissonant emotions. Our study constitutes a novel exploration of transformative clinical experiences within Critical Care, introducing a methodology that equips medical educators in Critical Care and beyond to better understand and support clinicians in their professional identity formation. As clinician burnout soars amidst increasing stressors on our healthcare systems, a healthy professional identity formation is an invaluable asset for personal growth and moral resilience. Our study paves the way for post-graduate and continuing education interventions that foster mindful personal growth within the medical subspecialties.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of enrollment into ARDS and sepsis trials published between 2009 and 2019 in major journals

BackgroundEnrollment problems are common among randomized controlled trials conducted in the ICU. However, little is known about actual trial enrollment rates and influential factors. We set out to determine the overall enrollment rate in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute lung injury (ALI), or sepsis, and which factors influenced enrollment rate.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review by searching Pubmed using predefined terms for ARDS/ALI and sepsis to identify individually RCTs published among the seven highest impact general medicine and seven highest impact critical care journals between 2009 and 2019. Cluster randomized trials were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using an electronic database management system. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of the eligible trials for the primary outcome of enrollment rate by time and site.ResultsOut of 457 articles identified, 94 trials met inclusion criteria. Trials most commonly evaluated pharmaceutical interventions (53%), were non-industry funded (78%), and required prospective informed consent (81%). The overall mean enrollment rate was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.21) participants per month per site. Enrollment in ARDS/ALI and sepsis trials were 0.48 (95% CI 0.32–0.70) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.56) respectively. The enrollment rate was significantly higher for single-center trials (4.86; 95% CI 2.49–9.51) than multicenter trials (0.52; 95% CI 0.41–0.66). Of the 36 trials that enrolled < 95% of the target sample size, 8 (22%) reported slow enrollment as the reason.ConclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, recent ARDS/ALI and sepsis clinical trials had an overall enrollment rate of less than 1 participant per site per month. Novel approaches to improve critical care trial enrollment efficiency are needed to facilitate the translation of best evidence into practice.

STRESS AND SHOCK: CASE OF MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT IN TOXIC SHOCK

TOPIC: Critical Care TYPE: Medical Student/Resident Case Reports INTRODUCTION: Sepsis may induce stress-induced cardiomyopathy by increased catecholamines. Although reversible, In severe cases this may lead to ventricular arrhythmias, thromboembolism, and cardiogenic shock. There is increased hospital mortality with age >80, black race, and presence of multi organ failure. CASE PRESENTATION: 52 yo black male with unknown medical history presents with belligerent behavior and shortness of breath. He was noted to be febrile to 108F, hypotensive with MAPs in the 40s, tachycardic to 140s, and hypoxic to 79% on room air. Labs significant for WBC 1, Cr 4.2, lactic acid 11.7, CK 2407, Troponin 0.104. ABG showed pH 7.19, pCO2 54, pO2 48, FiO2 100%. Chest xray showed bilateral interstitial and airspace opacities. Patient was intubated for hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure and started on norepinephrine, vasopressin, and epinephrine with 5L fluid bolus and stress dose steroids. TTE demonstrated left ventricle apical and mid wall segment akinesis with left ventricular ballooning. VA-ECMO emergently initiated for ARDS management and Impella was placed for cardiogenic shock secondary to sepsis-induced Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Sputum cultures returned positive for MRSA and Streptococcus pyogenes. Antibiotics changed to vancomycin, zosyn, azithromycin, cefepime, and clindamycin to account for toxic shock. Hospital course was complicated by development of pancytopenia requiring use of granix, atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate requiring emergent cardioversion, and renal failure requiring CRRT. Impella was removed on the sixth hospital day and the patient started on dobutamine. Patient eventually developed critical limb ischemia in all four extremities with need for bilateral hand and hip disarticulations. On the ninth hospital day, the patient was transitioned to comfort care and passed away. DISCUSSION: In the case above, toxic and septic shock caused stress-induced cardiomyopathy that required VA-ECMO and Impella. In the adult population, VA-ECMO has not been widely used in the treatment of refractory shock and outcomes with VV-ECMO have been better than VA-ECMO. This is likely due to VA-ECMO's use in profound hypoperfusion and higher incidence of neurological complications, renal failure, and limb ischemia. The addition of Impella helps unload the left ventricle and helps with EMCO weaning. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have found that better outcomes were associated with door-to-ECMO times of ≤96 hours, Gram-positive sepsis, and pneumonia rather than primary bloodstream infections. Though our patient met all of these criteria, his case still resulted in poor outcomes. REFERENCE #1: Cheng A, Sun HY, Tsai MS, Ko WJ, Tsai PR, Hu FC, Chen YC, Chang SC. Predictors of survival in adults undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with severe infections. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2016 Dec 1;152(6):1526-36. REFERENCE #2: Nabzdyk CS, Couture EJ, Shelton K, Cudemus G, Bittner EA. Sepsis induced cardiomyopathy: Pathophysiology and use of mechanical circulatory support for refractory shock. Journal of critical care. 2019 Dec 1;54:228-34. REFERENCE #3: Schmitz, M., Roux, X., Huttner, B. et al. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome in the intensive care unit. Ann. Intensive Care 8, 88 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0438-y DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Debapria Das, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Abigail Go, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Daniele Valentini, source=Web Response

The critical care literature 2020.

Given the dramatic increase in critically ill patients who present to the emergency department for care, along with the persistence of boarding of critically ill patients, it is imperative for the emergency physician to be knowledgeable about recent developments in resuscitation and critical care medicine. This review summarizes important articles published in 2020 that pertain to the resuscitation and care of select critically ill patients. These articles have been selected based on the authors annual review of key critical care, emergency medicine and medicine journals and their opinion of the importance of study findings as it pertains to the care of critically ill ED patients. Several key findings from the studies discussed in this paper include the administration of dexamethasone to patients with COVID-19 infection who require mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen, the use of lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome, and early initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation if resources are available. Furthermore, the emergency physician should not administer tranexamic acid to patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding or administer the combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock. Finally, the emergency physician should titrate vasopressor medications to more closely match a patient's chronic perfusion pressure rather than target a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 mmHg for all critically ill patients.

Emergency and Critical Care Medicine: the launch of a new medical journal

After careful preparation and collective efforts, we are honored to announce the launch of the first issue of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine. This journal offers a new opportunity to cross professional boundaries, track research hotspots, and produce innovative medical research results in the fields of emergency and critical care medicine. There are several reasons for the creation of this journal. The primary one is to introduce emergency events and medical research, thereby promoting the integration and communication between emergency and critical care medicine. In addition, although there are a variety of publications that include emergency and critical care, an all-encompassing medical journal of emergency and critical care is still absent in East Asia. It is our passion to establish a medical journal covering emergency- and critical care-related research from a global perspective. Emergency and Critical Care Medicine is interested in the following research areas: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, acute cardiovascular diseases, stroke, shock, acute respiratory failure, infection, trauma, out-of-hospital emergency medical services, emergency, critical care, disaster management, toxicology, organ dysfunction, artificial intelligence, life-supporting devices, and more. This journal provides rapid publication of original articles, reviews, case reports, meta-analyses, comments, methodologies, perspectives/viewpoints, editorials, images, news, communications, letters to the editor, etc., from professionals and researchers worldwide. All submissions are processed online through https://www.editorialmanager.com/eccm/. This new journal is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal with mechanisms for buzz-check and a priority publication service. In other words, all articles that pass the fair peer-review procedure and publication by the journal are free and available on the official website from 2021 to 2025 for the benefit of the entire academic community. Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, an official journal of Shandong University, is published by the world-class medical publisher, Wolters Kluwer | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, with the support of the Chinese Society of Emergency Medicine and the Chest Pain Branch of the China International Exchange and Promotive Association for Medical and Health Care. The journal will define itself by the ability to provide a friendly communication platform for an increasing number of innovative findings in the field of emergency and critical care. In addition, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine is supported by the “High-level New Journal of 2019 Action Plan for the Excellence of China Science and Technology Journals” project, and it is our belief that the journal is poised to make a great breakthrough not only in China but all over the world. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the experienced and distinguished editorial board members, whose advice and actions contributed significantly to the creation of this journal. In the years to come, the editorial board and I will work closely to make this journal a success. I also genuinely thank each author for their enthusiasm, trust, and contributions, on which the growth of this journal depends. Furthermore, my deep appreciation goes to the reviewers, who are prominent experts and always send timely comments and feedback on every manuscript. We welcome you as we take on the challenge of making Emergency and Critical Care a globally respected medical journal that contributes to bettering human lives. Numerous changes have taken place in the fields of emergency and critical care medicine, and various new theories, diagnostic techniques, and therapeutic strategies have been proposed. With a broad and multidisciplinary scope, this journal will do its utmost to act as a platform for sharing professional knowledge, diverse thinking, cases, as well as basic and clinical research, in an efficient and interactive way. Novel and highly qualified papers are welcome from physicians, researchers, nurses, and other medical workers and students in related areas. We hope the journal can become a significant information source and contributor to the advancement of emergency and critical care medicine.

Barriers to reporting guideline adherence in point-of-care ultrasound research: a cross-sectional survey of authors and journal editors

ObjectiveAlthough the literature supporting the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) continues to grow, incomplete reporting of primary diagnostic accuracy studies has previously been identified as a barrier to translating research...

Women Representation as First and Corresponding Authors in Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care Journals: A Retrospective Analysis.

There is limited literature on the representation of women in leading roles in neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care academia. We aimed to determine the representation of women as first and corresponding authors in articles published in 3 dedicated journals of neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care during last 5 years. Articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, Neurocritical Care, and Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2020 were included in this study. The primary outcome was the proportion of women first authors, and secondary outcomes were the percentage of women corresponding authors, and representation of women as first and corresponding author by article type and country of affiliation. Of the 1164 articles included in the study, 403 (34.6%) had a woman first author. Women first authorship was highest for Special Articles (5/11; 45.5%), Clinical Reports (44/113; 38.9%) and Narrative Review Articles (58/151; 38.4%) and lowest for Original Research Articles (198/597; 33.2%). Women accounted for 29.6% (344/1164) of corresponding authors across all article types. Overall, the United States and India had the highest representation of women first authors (159/403; 39.0% and 107/344; 31.0%, respectively), and India also had highest proportion of women corresponding authors (107/272; 39.3%). Women were underrepresented compared with men as first author of articles published in 3 dedicated neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care journals over the last 5 years. Women had the lowest representation as authors of Original Research Articles.

Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane. For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results. Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results. Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.

Interventions to promote family member involvement in adult critical care settings: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo identify, appraise and synthesise evidence of interventions designed to promote family member involvement in adult critical care units; and to develop a working typology of interventions for use by...

Writing for PCCM: The 3,000-Word Structured Clinical Research Report.

Writing for PCCM: The 3,000-Word Structured Clinical Research Report.

Alternative cardiac intensive care unit locations during the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic medical center

Alternative cardiac intensive care unit locations during the COVID-19 pandemic at an academic medical center

Blinding practices during acute point-of-care ultrasound research: the BLIND-US meta-research study

ObjectivesPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) diagnostic accuracy research has significant variation in blinding practices. This study characterises the blinding practices during acute POCUS research to determine whether research methodology adequately reflects POCUS...

Clinical trial registry searches are under-utilized in systematic reviews from critical care journals: A bibliometric analysis.

Publication bias has a significant impact on the results of systematic reviews. Clinical trial registry searches, which include unpublished research, should be conducted when performing systematic reviews to reduce publication bias. We aimed to analyze the use of clinical trial registry searches in critical care systematic reviews. Systematic reviews published between 01/01/2010-02/18/2020 from the top 5 critical care journals were extracted from PubMed and screened for trial registry use. Additionally, of the studies not performing registry searches, we assessed ClinicalTrials.gov for potentially relevant trials that were missed by not performing a registry search. Three hundred and twenty six systematic reviews were analyzed, of which 37 (11.3%) performed trial registry searches. Of the studies not performing clinical trial registry searches, 56% had at least 1 potentially relevant trial that was missed. The omission of relevant, unpublished clinical trial results may be negatively impacting the accuracy of critical care systematic reviews. We recommend all systematic reviewers conduct clinical trial registry searches to reduce publication bias.

A critical review of the development of advanced practice competency frameworks and their contribution to autonomous practice

A critical review of the development of advanced practice competency frameworks and their contribution to autonomous practice

COVID‐19: Moving beyond the pandemic

Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of COVID-19. As of April 11th, 2020, there were almost 2 million cases of COVID-19 internationally and over 100,000 deaths (John Hopkins University, 2020). There has been significant effort to increase hospital and healthcare capacity to reduce the number of fatalities associated with this global pandemic (Choi & Logsdon 2020).

Do perceived honorary authors influence publication chance? Survey evidence from the journal of critical care.

Perceived Honorary Authors (PHAs) are defined as authors on manuscripts who did not contribute enough. The association between PHAs and publication chance in journals is unknown. As a start, our aim was to examine the prevalence of PHAs in the Journal of Critical Care (JCC). Furthermore, we investigated whether PHAs influences publication chance in the JCC. Also, we attempt to replicate factors associated with the prevalence of PHAs found in earlier studies. Between January 2018 and March 2019, we invited 1310 corresponding authors of submissions after the final editorial decision to complete a survey. Descriptive statistics and multinomial and binary logistic regressions were used in data analysis. Among the 475 respondents (response rate: 36%), we found a prevalence of PHAs of 13%. There was no significant association between PHAs and editorial decisions. Furthermore, if a senior member of the department who is automatically an author was present, our multivariate analysis showed a positive association with PHAs (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.99-7.54). However, such senior department member was not associated with the editorial decision in the multivariate analysis. The prevalence of PHAs was conform other studies 13%, and did not influence publication chance.

Adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 Guidelines in Acute Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research

Incomplete reporting of diagnostic accuracy research impairs assessment of risk of bias and limits generalizability. Point-of-care ultrasound has become an important diagnostic tool for acute care physicians, but studies assessing its use are of varying methodological quality. To assess adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 guidelines in the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound. MEDLINE was searched to identify diagnostic accuracy studies assessing point-of-care ultrasound published in critical care, emergency medicine, or anesthesia journals from 2016 to 2019. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with the following variables analyzed: journal, country, STARD citation, STARD-adopting journal, impact factor, patient population, use of supplemental material, and body region. Data analysis was performed in November 2019. Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review for assessment. Overall adherence to STARD was moderate, with 66% (mean [SD], 19.7 [2.9] of 30 items) of STARD items reported. Items pertaining to imaging specifications, patient population, and readers of the index test were frequently reported (>66% of studies). Items pertaining to blinding of readers to clinical data and to the index or reference standard, analysis of heterogeneity, indeterminate and missing data, and time intervals between index and reference test were either moderately (33%-66%) or infrequently (<33%) reported. Studies in STARD-adopting journals (mean [SD], 20.5 [2.9] items in adopting journals vs 18.6 [2.3] items in nonadopting journals; P = .002) and studies citing STARD (mean [SD], 21.3 [0.9] items in citing studies vs 19.5 [2.9] items in nonciting studies; P = .01) reported more items. Variation by country and journal of publication were identified. No differences in STARD adherence were identified by body region imaged (mean [SD], abdominal, 20.0 [2.5] items; head and neck, 17.8 [1.6] items; musculoskeletal, 19.2 [3.1] items; thoracic, 20.2 [2.8] items; and other or procedural, 19.8 [2.7] items; P = .29), study design (mean [SD], prospective, 19.7 [2.9] items; retrospective, 19.7 [1.8] items; P > .99), patient population (mean [SD], pediatric, 20.0 [3.1] items; adult, 20.2 [2.7] items; mixed, 17.9 [1.9] items; P = .09), use of supplementary materials (mean [SD], yes, 19.2 [3.0] items; no, 19.7 [2.8] items; P = .91), or journal impact factor (mean [SD], higher impact factor, 20.3 [3.1] items; lower impact factor, 19.1 [2.4] items; P = .08). Overall, the literature on acute care point-of-care ultrasound showed moderate adherence to the STARD 2015 guidelines, with more complete reporting found in studies citing STARD and those published in STARD-adopting journals. This study has established a current baseline for reporting; however, future studies are required to understand barriers to complete reporting and to develop strategies to mitigate them.

Development and Reporting of Prediction Models: Guidance for Authors From Editors of Respiratory, Sleep, and Critical Care Journals.

Prediction models aim to use available data to predict a health state or outcome that has not yet been observed. Prediction is primarily relevant to clinical practice, but is also used in research, and administration. While prediction modeling involves estimating the relationship between patient factors and outcomes, it is distinct from casual inference. Prediction modeling thus requires unique considerations for development, validation, and updating. This document represents an effort from editors at 31 respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine journals to consolidate contemporary best practices and recommendations related to prediction study design, conduct, and reporting. Herein, we address issues commonly encountered in submissions to our various journals. Key topics include considerations for selecting predictor variables, operationalizing variables, dealing with missing data, the importance of appropriate validation, model performance measures and their interpretation, and good reporting practices. Supplemental discussion covers emerging topics such as model fairness, competing risks, pitfalls of "modifiable risk factors", measurement error, and risk for bias. This guidance is not meant to be overly prescriptive; we acknowledge that every study is different, and no set of rules will fit all cases. Additional best practices can be found in the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, to which we refer readers for further details.