On Jan 19, 2015, at 9:52 PM, Farhan Bhanji, Dr. <farhan.bhanji@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Hi Aaron,

thanks for updating the assessment of bias statement. I think we may need to nuance the treatment recommendation while in Dallas as it may raise some serious discussion/debate (and it should align with the BLS paper). It is relatively weak evidence where ILCOR has traditional not 'taken a stand' (esp on a charged topic like this) so will be a great test case to see where we can get to

Judith and I can talk to Bill Montgomery if you and Jon can't get to this tomorrow (it is supposed to be the hard deadline). Not sure what he will say but since this is so close I'm hoping you can get there

take care,

Farhan

From: Donoghue, Aaron J [DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:52 PM
To: Judith Finn; Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs
Subject: RE: EIT 881 CoSTR

Hi Judith,

 

I think you are right about the bias statement; I will amend it accordingly.

 

I will try to pull everything together as best I can; I am currently on service in the ICU here in Philadelphia and there is an outbreak of influenza among the faculty and fellows (not me, so far), which coupled with many absent faculty members due to the Society of Critical Care Medicine going on has made my work schedule a bit unpredictable for the next few days (put another way, I could be asked to step in and take in-house overnight call any day now).

 

I know the e-mail from Catina a few weeks ago had a hard deadline of Jan 20th for completion; do you think Jonathan and I could plead for a few days of leniency?  (and if so, whom should I plead to?)

 

Thanks again for your help,

 

Aaron

From: Judith Finn [judith.finn@curtin.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 10:35 PM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J; Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs
Subject: RE: EIT 881 CoSTR

Dear Aaron et al
It is my personal view that ALL observational studies suffer from bias due to confounding – but I don’t mind either way for the worksheet – it is your call.
Will you be able to submit all remaining components of your review today?
Regards, Judith

 

Professor Judith Finn  PhD, MEdSt, GradDipPH, BSc, DipAppSc, RN, RM, ICCert, FACN, FAHA
Director: Prehospital, Resuscitation & Emergency Care Research Unit (PRECRU) : School of Nursing & Midwifery
ph (08) 9266 4447 I M: 0417189841  I  E: judith.finn@curtin.edu.au I W: www.precru.org.au
<image001.png>

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology. 
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J (WA), 02637B (NSW)

 

From: Donoghue, Aaron J [mailto:DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2015 11:21 AM
To: Judith Finn; Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs
Subject: EIT 881 CoSTR

 

Please find attached a first draft of a CoSTR statement for EIT 881.  I would appreciate everyone's opinion as to whether the Bobrow and Panchal studies should be considered as having 'serious' risk of bias or not.  

 

AD

From: Donoghue, Aaron J
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 7:44 AM
To: Judith Finn; Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs
Subject: RE: GRADE

Both papers had a risk of ascertainment bias based on the fact that the 'exposure of interest' (type of bystander CPR) was judged by trained personnel . . . I wasn't sure whether that warranted a 'High' designation in the bias category or if there is an intermediate designation between 'low' and 'high'.

AD

From: Judith Finn [judith.finn@curtin.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 11:31 PM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J; Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs
Subject: RE: GRADE

Hi Aaron
It is OK to combine observation papers together.
My only query is whether the risk of confounding is actually ‘low’ in the observational studies??
Thanks, Judith

 

From: Donoghue, Aaron J [mailto:DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu] 
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015 7:35 AM
To: Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Jonathan Duff
Cc: Koen Monsieurs; Judith Finn
Subject: RE: GRADE

 

Hi everyone,

 

Please find attached my first attempt at SoF and Summary of Bias tables for EIT 881. 

 

In the SoF table, the first listed outcome (survival to discharge) has the two articles from Arizona, one of which found a significant effect on survival (Bobrow et al, JAMA 2010) when patient with cardiac etiology were involved, and the second was a small inconclusive analysis of the patients with noncardiac origin from the same database (Panchal et al, Resusc 2013).

 

Is it correct to lump both papers together in the first row on the SoF table?

 

AD

From: Farhan Bhanji, Dr. [farhan.bhanji@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 11:52 PM
To: Jonathan Duff; Donoghue, Aaron J
Cc: Koen Monsieurs; Finn Judith
Subject: RE: GRADE

thanks Gents - hope you can make it through this w/e

 

F

From: Jonathan Duff [jduff@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 7:26 AM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J
Cc: Farhan Bhanji, Dr.; Koen Monsieurs; Finn Judith
Subject: Re: GRADE

Sounds good, been here all night so I will be focusing on maintaining continence today...will aim for the weekend as well.

Cheers, 
Jon

 


On Jan 16, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Donoghue, Aaron J <DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu> wrote:

Great; Jon, I am on day one of 7 of ICU service as of this morning but I will take a crack at the GDT tables over the weekend.

 

AD

From: Farhan Bhanji, Dr. [farhan.bhanji@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 6:57 AM
To: Jonathan Duff
Cc: Donoghue, Aaron J; Koen Monsieurs; Finn Judith
Subject: Re: GRADE

Hi Gents,

 

Sorry yesterday was a long day!

 

I think your approach to the articles make sense, at least from my perspective.

 

I understood Taku Iwami and colleagues would have one published around now. Was that your sense as well Koen?

 

You can join together for the GDT part - we only need one table and CoSTR

 

Take care,

 

Farhan 

Sent from my iPhone


On 2015-01-15, at 12:01 PM, "Jonathan Duff" <jduff@ualberta.ca> wrote:

Hi all,  

 

I agree with Aaron’s synopsis - if we are truly focusing on training with a comparison then we really only have 3 papers.

 

Cheers,
Jon

 

 

 

On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Donoghue, Aaron J <DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu> wrote:

 

While I happen to have you both in an e-mail chain, I have another question about my second-guessing our selections at another level . . .

 

Presently we are down to 7 articles; 2 from Arizona (SHARE database) reporting patient outcomes, and 5 (Blewer, Lee, Lam, Shibata, and Taniguchi) reporting willingness to provide CCPR vs SCPR.

 

The I of our PICO question is "teaching compression-only CPR".  Both of the AZ studies explicitly mention that the state of Arizona has been recommending and teaching CCPR statewide since before and during the respective study periods. 

 

Among the other 5 studies, only the Blewer article actually mentions training that is specific to the CCPR method (subjects were randomized to get CCPR training or SCPR training and surveyed for likelihood of performing CPR afterwards.  The other 4 studies (all 4 from Asia) describe public willingness to do CPR when offered a choice (on a survey or questionnaire) between CCPR and SCPR.  There is NO mention, however, in any of these 4 studies about training of any specific kind. 

 

It makes me wonder whether these latter 4 studies are not really answering the question either.  That would leave us with 2 studies (Bobrow and Panchal) looking at patient outcomes and one (Blewer) looking at provider willingness to perform CPR.  In all of these 3 a genuine head-to-head comparison between CCPR and SCPR is made.

 

Thoughts?

 

AD

 


From: Jonathan Duff [jduff@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J
Cc: Farhan Bhanji
Subject: Re: GRADE

I think we are supposed to do it in parallel??  Farhan, is that correct?
Cheers,
Jon

 

 

 

On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Donoghue, Aaron J <DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu> wrote:

 

Hi Jon,

 

Hope your travels home were uneventful . . . I am sitting down to my newly installed GDT software and will try to get our data entered . . . are you and I expected to do this in parallel?  I assume not; there appear to be a way to create a question in GDT and attach multiple people to it; should we do that?

 

AD

From: Jonathan Duff [jduff@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 3:22 PM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J
Subject: Re: Final papers

Just saw it, thanks for that.  Agree, I would exclude

 

Cheers,
Jon

 

 

 

On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Donoghue, Aaron J <DONOGHUE@email.chop.edu> wrote:

 

FYI . . . that missing Italian article just turned up (attached, in Dropbox as well) . . . from the abstract I think I would exclude (survey of healthcare providers, no specific comparison of CCPR vs SCPR)

 

AD

From: Donoghue, Aaron J
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 3:05 PM
To: Jonathan Duff
Subject: RE: Final papers

Agree; that list correlates completely with what I whittled it down to.

 

AD

From: Jonathan Duff [jduff@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:51 PM
To: Donoghue, Aaron J
Subject: Final papers

Hi Aaron,  

 

Great to meet you today.  Here’s the list of final papers I think we should include, let me know if this works for you and we can send them to Farhan.  I’m going to start working through GRADE.

 

Blewer
2012
Bobrow
2008
Lam
2007
Lee
2013
Panchal
2013
Shibata
2000
Taniguchi
2007
Urban 
2013

 

Cheers,
Jon

 

 

 

<Giammaria et al.pdf>