Top 10 research priorities for sepsis research determined by patients, carers and clinicians

Résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a high burden syndrome associated with increased morbidity and mortality in both the acute and longer-term phases of illness. Multiple treatment uncertainties remain that require resolution through high-quality research. This study aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for sepsis research in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting partnership study co-produced by sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. This included five stages: initiation of steering group formation and confirmation of the scope of the priority setting partnership; identification of clinical uncertainties through an electronic survey; analysis and verification of uncertainties; interim prioritisation to the top 25 ranked questions; and final prioritisation to determine the top 10 research priorities, using the nominal group technique. RESULTS: Our initial survey respondents comprised 447/718 (62.3%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 218/718 (30.4%) clinicians; and 53/718 (7.1%) multiple/other roles who identified 53 distinct research uncertainties. Our interim prioritisation survey comprised 429/941 (45.8%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 431/941 (46.0%) clinicians; and 73/941 (8.2%) multiple/other roles, with the top 25 ranked summary questions taken forwards for final prioritisation. From these, final workshop participants (n = 27) agreed a top 10 list of research priorities. Improved sepsis diagnosis; characterisation and management of the post-sepsis syndrome; and non-antibiotic treatment of sepsis were the top three priorities. DISCUSSION: We established priorities for sepsis research through a rigorous process of consensus involving sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. These priorities will support future delivery of meaningful research to improve outcomes from sepsis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.