Research In Critical Care Medicine Research Articles

Keys to Successful Survey Research in Health Professions Education.

Survey research is well suited to measuring the knowledge, behavior, and attitudes of study participants and has been widely used in medical education and pulmonary and critical care medicine research. Although the ease of survey administration via electronic platforms has led to an increased volume of survey publications, improving the quality of this work remains an important challenge. To provide an overview of key steps for rigorous survey design and conduct. Narrative review. Conducting survey research begins with a clearly defined research question pertaining to a specified population that is accessible for sampling. Survey investigators may choose to adapt relevant preexisting survey instruments, an approach with the potential for conducting more valid, generalizable, and comparable studies. If a new survey tool is used, more extensive piloting and psychometric analysis of the survey instruments may be needed to assess if they accurately measure the concepts of interest. When administering the survey, the use of appropriate methods for sample recruitment maximizes the chances of a high response rate in a generalizable study population. Finally, when writing up and disseminating survey research, careful attention to reporting guidelines can increase the clarity of survey reports and assist readers in interpreting the results and conclusions. With careful attention to study design and conduct, the quality of survey research can be improved and lead to higher impact and more generalizable studies in the fields of medical education and pulmonary and critical care medicine.

Review and prospects of international clinical research in critical care medicine in 2023

The main clinical research advances of critical care in 2023 includes: new trials of Chinese herbal medicine, hydroxocobalamin (vitamin B12), methylene blue as well glucocorticoids have shown the potential to improve outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock; international committees launched new global definition and managing recommendations for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Besides, a cluster of new evidences has emerged in many aspects as following: fluid control strategy in sepsis (restrictive/liberative), antibiotic infusion strategy (continuous/intermittent), oxygen-saturation targets for mechanical ventilation (conservative/liberative), blood pressure targets after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (hypotension/hypertension), blood pressure targets after successful stroke thrombectomy (intensive/conventional), and nutritional support strategies (low protein-calories/conventional protein-calories, fasting/persistent feeding before extubation). Thus, given above progress, carrying out high -quality domestic multi-center clinical registration researches, constructing shareable standardized databases, as well raising public awareness of sepsis, should be the essential steps to improve our level of intensive care medicine.

Collaborative Research in Critical Care Medicine: A Way Forward to High-impact Publications from India

Collaborative Research in Critical Care Medicine: A Way Forward to High-impact Publications from India

Impactful publications of critical care medicine research in China: A bibliometric analysis.

Although publications have been increasing rapidly, the research quality has yet to improve in the field of critical care medicine (CCM) in China. This study aimed at investigating the current status of and the influential factors for impactful publications in CCM research by Chinese authors. Publications by authors with the affiliation of critical care medicine department or intensive care unit (CCM/ICU) in Chinese as well as American hospitals from 2001 to 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database for this bibliometric analysis. Moreover, statistical analyses to test factors affecting impactful publications by Chinese authors were performed. Of 13,487 articles retrieved by this search strategy, 6,622 were published by Chinese authors as first or corresponding authors. The annual publications by Chinese authors have been rapidly increasing from 2001 to 2020, and so did the citations to these articles. However, the proportion in the world of publications by Chinese authors was much less than that by American authors each year [M (IQR): 1.85 (9.592) vs. 27.77 (7.3), p < 0.001]. In addition, impactful articles were significantly less published by Chinese than by American authors, including articles either in journals with a high impact factor (p < 0.001) or in the top 10 journals in the field of CCM (5.4 vs 13.4%, p < 0.001), and articles with high citation frequency as well (p < 0.001). Moreover, the percentage of impactful publications by Chinese authors was likely associated with academic background and regions of the author's affiliations, funds support, public health events of COVID-19, and collaboration between authors. Our results demonstrated that CCM research in China grew rapidly in the recent 20 years. However, the impactful publications remained limited, largely owing to the shortage of comprehensive research training, inactive collaboration, and underfunded CCM research.

A bibliometric and visualized analysis of early mobilization in intensive care unit from 2000 to 2021.

BackgroundEarly mobilization in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a hotspot. This study aims to provide a bibliometric perspective of the progress in this field.MethodsWe extracted publications on ICU early mobilization published in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2000 to 2021. VOSviewer was used to construct co-occurrence and co-citation relationships for authors, references, and keywords; Citespace was used to visualize knowledge mapping of subject categories, countries, and keywords with the strongest citation bursts.ResultsA total of 4,570 publications were analyzed, with a steady increase in publications in the field of ICU early mobilization. From a macro perspective, research on ICU early mobilization involves multidisciplinary involvement, including critical care medicine, neurology, and nursing; as for the meso perspective, the United States is the major contributor. Needham DM and Schweickert WD are the key researchers in this field. Moreover, the core journal is Critical Care Medicine, with the most publications and citations. The microscopic level, dominated by references and keywords, illustrates that the hotspot and frontier of research on ICU early mobilization focus on ICU-acquired weakness, delirium, the prognosis of critical illness, and severe COVID-19.ConclusionThis study presents a research landscape of ICU early mobilization from different perspectives. These findings will contribute to a better understanding of the current state of research in critical care medicine and provide the available information for future research ideas.

The Coming of Age of Implementation Science and Research in Critical Care Medicine.

Barr, Juliana MD, FCCM1,2; Paulson, Shirley S. DNP, MPA, RN, NEA-BC3; Kamdar, Biren MD, MBA, MHS4; Ervin, Jennifer N. PhD5; Lane-Fall, Meghan MD, MSHP, FCCM6,7; Liu, Vincent MD, MS8–11; Kleinpell, Ruth PhD, RN, FCCM12 Author Information

Systematic review and bibliometric analysis of African anesthesia and critical care medicine research part II: a scientometric analysis of the 116 most cited articles

BackgroundScientometrics is used to assess the impact of research in several health fields, including Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine. The purpose of this study was to identify contributors to highly-cited African Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine research.MethodsThe authors searched Web of Science from inception to May 4, 2020, for articles on and about Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine in Africa with ≥2 citations. Quantitative (H-index) and qualitative (descriptive analysis of yearly publications and interpretation of document, co-authorship, author country, and keyword) bibliometric analyses were done.ResultsThe search strategy returned 116 articles with a median of 5 (IQR: 3–12) citations on Web of Science. Articles were published in Anesthesia and Analgesia (18, 15.5%), World Journal of Surgery (13, 11.2%), and South African Medical Journal (8, 6.9%). Most (74, 63.8%) articles were published on or after 2013. Seven authors had more than 1 article in the top 116 articles: Epiu I (3, 2.6%), Elobu AE (2, 1.7%), Fenton PM (2, 1.7%), Kibwana S (2, 1.7%), Rukewe A (2, 1.7%), Sama HD (2, 1.7%), and Zoumenou E (2, 1.7%). The bibliometric coupling analysis of documents highlighted 10 clusters, with the most significant nodes being Biccard BM, 2018; Baker T, 2013; Llewellyn RL, 2009; Nigussie S, 2014; and Aziato L, 2015. Dubowitz G (5) and Ozgediz D (4) had the highest H-indices among the authors referenced by the most-cited African Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine articles. The U.S.A., England, and Uganda had the strongest collaboration links among the articles, and most articles focused on perioperative care.ConclusionThis study highlighted trends in top-cited African articles and African and non-African academic institutions’ contributions to these articles.

Systematic review and bibliometric analysis of African anesthesia and critical care medicine research part I: hierarchy of evidence and scholarly productivity

BackgroundResearch is an essential component of Anesthesia, and the contributions of researchers and institutions can be appreciated from the analysis of scholarly outputs. Such analyses help identify major contributors and trends in publication. Little is known about the state of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine (A.C.C.M.) research in Africa. We aimed to describe African A.C.C.M. research’s current landscape by determining its productivity per country and point towards possible ideas for improvement.MethodsThe authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to May 4, 2020, for articles on or about A.C.C.M. in Africa. Studies were selected based on their titles and abstracts. Rayyan software was later on used for data management in the review selection process. Then, the full-text of eligible articles were screened. Data were extracted, and the number of articles per physician anesthesia providers and provider density were calculated. Kruskal Wallis test and Spearman’s correlation were used, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsOf the 4690 articles, only 886 (18.9%) were included in the analysis. The articles were published between 1946 and 2020 in 278 target journals. 55 (6.2%) articles were published in the South African Journal of Surgery, 51 (5.8%) in Anesthesia and Analgesia, and 46 (5.2%) in Anaesthesia. 291 (32.8%) studies were cross-sectional. 195 (22.0%) first authors were from Nigeria, 118 (13.3%) from South Africa, and 88 (9.9%) from the U.S.A. Malawi (1.67), Togo (1.06), and Sierra Leone (1.00) had the highest number of articles per provider. Whereas Ethiopia (580.00), Nigeria (336.21), and Malawi (333.33) had the highest number of articles per provider density.ConclusionWe identified the most and least productive African countries in A.C.C.M. research and a low-quality hierarchy of evidence in these publications. Hence, the study’s findings may aid in driving the A.C.C.M. research agenda and capacity building in Africa.

Organising international research in critical care medicine: current challenges and potential solutions

Organising international research in critical care medicine: current challenges and potential solutions

In the pursuit of partnership: patient and family engagement in critical care medicine.

Patient and family partnership in critical care medicine research and clinical care is essential to achieve patient and family-centered care. Although there is an increasing interest in patient and family engagement, research is lacking to direct clinicians and researchers on how to provide opportunities for meaningful engagement. We review the recent literature and provide examples from our own experiences to guide all parties in this important and emerging area. Though the literature is relatively nascent, studies suggest that there is a desire to engage patients and families in critical care medicine research and clinical care, however, uncertainty exists on how to achieve this goal. Engagement exists on a spectrum from presence to shared decision-making and direct contributions to care; most engagement in critical care medicine involves participation in research and presence at the bedside. Expectation management is essential for meaningful engagement and true partnership. Challenges to patient and family engagement exist, including determining appropriate compensation, aligning engagement with needs and skills, and recruitment, training and retention. These challenges can be mitigated with thoughtful planning and management. Patient and family engagement in critical care medicine is an emerging field that requires further study to support definitive conclusions. Until then, it is important to match interested patients and family members with appropriate opportunities and provide training and support to ensure meaningful engagement.

Outcome of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Abstracts Presented at North American Academic National Meetings.

Pediatric critical care medicine abstracts presented at North American national academic meetings have not been followed up to determine their publication outcomes. Our objective was to determine the following: 1) the proportion of these presentations that are published in peer-reviewed journals within 5 years; 2) the impact of trainee status on time to and success of publication; and 3) the quality of the research as reflected in the publishing journal's impact factor. Four years of abstracts (2007-2011) were reviewed from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatric Academic Societies, and Society of Critical Care Medicine national meetings. Pediatric critical care medicine abstracts were delineated by the meeting or identified by keyword search. Data included mode of presentation, trainee status of first author, publication status within 5 years based on a PubMed search, trainee position in the journal of publication authorship list, and the impact factor of journal of publication. We evaluated 267 pediatric critical care medicine abstracts, 85-94 from each meeting. Overall, 41% were published, with the highest rate in Pediatric Academic Societies abstracts (54% Pediatric Academic Societies, 38% Society of Critical Care Medicine, and 33% American Academy of Pediatrics; p = 0.011). Mean time to publication was 22 (± 3) months and did not differ by conference or presentation mode. Journal first authorship was retained in 84%. Journal impact factor was highest in Society of Critical Care Medicine abstracts (3.38 Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2.64 Pediatric Academic Societies, and 1.92 American Academy of Pediatrics; p = 0.006). First author trainee status was not associated with publication rate, time to publication, and impact factor. A total of 100% of trainees but only 79% of nontrainees who published retained first authorship. Less than half of pediatric critical care medicine research abstracts presented at North American national academic meetings culminate in articles. Pediatric Academic Societies had the highest publication success rate, and Society of Critical Care Medicine abstracts were published in journals with the highest impact factors. All trainees who were first authors retained that status in the journal publications.

Insights and limits of translational research in critical care medicine.

Experimental research has always been the cornerstone of pathophysiological and therapeutic advances in critical care medicine, where clinical observations and basic research mutually fed each other in a so-called translational approach. The objective of this review is to address the different aspects of translational research in the field of critical care medicine. We herein highlighted some demonstrative examples including the animal-to-human approach to study host-pathogen interactions, the human-to-animal approach for sepsis-induced immunosuppression, the still restrictive human approach to study critical illness-related neuromyopathy, and the technological developments to assess the microcirculatory changes in critically ill patients. These examples not only emphasize how translational research resulted in major improvements in the comprehension of the pathophysiology of severe clinical conditions and offered promising perspectives in critical care medicine but also point out the obstacles to translate such achievements into clinical practice.

Abandon the Mouse Research Ship? Not Just Yet!

Many preclinical studies in critical care medicine and related disciplines rely on hypothesis-driven research in mice. The underlying premise posits that mice sufficiently emulate numerous pathophysiologic alterations produced by trauma/sepsis and can serve as an experimental platform for answering clinically relevant questions. Recently, the lay press severely criticized the translational relevance of mouse models in critical care medicine. A series of provocative editorials were elicited by a highly publicized research report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS; February 2013), which identified an unrecognized gene expression profile mismatch between human and murine leukocytes following burn/trauma/endotoxemia. Based on their data, the authors concluded that mouse models of trauma/inflammation are unsuitable for studying corresponding human conditions. We believe this conclusion was not justified. In conjunction with resulting negative commentary in the popular press, it can seriously jeopardize future basic research in critical care medicine. We will address some limitations of that PNAS report to provide a framework for discussing its conclusions and attempt to present a balanced summary of strengths/weaknesses of use of mouse models. While many investigators agree that animal research is a central component for improved patient outcomes, it is important to acknowledge known limitations in clinical translation from mouse to man. The scientific community is responsible to discuss valid limitations without overinterpretation. Hopefully, a balanced view of the strengths/weaknesses of using animals for trauma/endotoxemia/critical care research will not result in hasty discount of the clear need for using animals to advance treatment of critically ill patients.

Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: Transformation of the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit and the Emerging Need for New Medical Staffing and Training Models

Critical care, defined as the diagnosis and management of life-threatening conditions that require close or constant attention by a group of specially trained health professionals, is inherent to the practice of cardiovascular medicine. The demand for cardiovascular critical care is increasing with the aging of the population and is reflected by trends in the use of critical care in general.1 Between 2000 and 2005, although the total number of hospital beds in the United States declined by 4.2%, the number of critical care beds increased by 6.5% and the annual costs attributed to critical care increased by 44%, representing 13.4% of hospital costs.2 Projections for the next 15 years suggest that the need for critical care will increase markedly in the United States and globally.1,3–5 For example, in Canada, a 57% increase in the need for critical care beds is anticipated during that period.5 Concurrent with increases in demand, the medical demographics of general and cardiac critical care have evolved toward a patient population with an increasing number of comorbid medical conditions who require more prolonged and more technologically sophisticated invasive support. As a result, the delivery of critical care is advancing substantially in its complexity. Moreover, accumulating evidence has indicated that outcomes are better when critical care is provided by specially trained providers in a dedicated intensive care unit (ICU).6–9 In the context of this evolution, provision of optimal care in the contemporary cardiac ICU (CICU) presents a different set of challenges and requires an expanded set of skills compared with 10 years ago. Cardiovascular medicine has lagged behind other medical disciplines that have met the “critical care crisis”4 with ICU-focused innovations in organization, training, and quality improvement. Therefore, the American Heart Association Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical …

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research

Background Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. Objective To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. Methods The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. Results The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional “silo-ed” approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. Conclusions This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine. Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional “silo-ed” approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research: Key Issues and Recommendations

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the U.S. Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: (1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; (2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; (3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and (4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross-section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research: Key Issues and Recommendations

Critical care is one of the most rapidly growing areas in medicine. In the United States, care for the critically ill and injured consumes about $80 billion each year, an amount that constitutes approximately 1% of the gross domestic product (1). Mortality rates in intensive care units (ICUs) in US hospitals exceed those of all other care areas, with the result that one in five deaths in the United States occurs in the critical care setting (2). The best hope for both improving patient outcomes and containing costs lies in developing innovative treatments and systems of care, implementing new research findings, and identifying critical care research priorities. The field of critical care medicine encompasses a broad spectrum of illness and injury and is practiced in a myriad of physical locations by providers with diverse skill sets. Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, from classroom to the ICU, and from the community to the hospital. It involves many departments, specialties, professional societies and research institutes/ foundations. Consequently, it has been difficult for experts representing the various communities and professional organizations to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. After conducting joint meetings for a number of years, in 2009 the four largest professional societies involved in critical care in the United States–the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)–formally established the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) to explore common issues. At that time, in spite of the importance of critical care, there was no consensus on the research agenda in the United States. The closest approach was the 1995 report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Task Background: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. Objective: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. Methods: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. Results: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional “silo-ed” approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. Conclusions: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine. (Crit Care Med 2012; 40:254–260)

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research: Key Issues and Recommendations

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Health Care Reform and Comparative Effectiveness Research in Critical Care Medicine

Health Care Reform and Comparative Effectiveness Research in Critical Care Medicine