DESIGN: A prospective cohort study.
SETTING: The study was conducted across 623 ICUs of 224 hospitals in 114 cities in 37 African, Asian, Eastern European, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries.
PARTICIPANTS: The study included 169,036 patients, hospitalized for 1,166,593 patient days.
METHODS: Data collection took place from January 1, 2014, to February 12, 2022. We identified CAUTI rates per 1,000 UC days and UC device utilization (DU) ratios stratified by country, by ICU type, by facility ownership type, by World Bank country classification by income level, and by UC type. To estimate CAUTI risk factors, we analyzed 11 variables using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: Participant patients acquired 2,010 CAUTIs. The pooled CAUTI rate was 2.83 per 1,000 UC days. The highest CAUTI rate was associated with the use of suprapubic catheters (3.93 CAUTIs per 1,000 UC days); with patients hospitalized in Eastern Europe (14.03) and in Asia (6.28); with patients hospitalized in trauma (7.97), neurologic (6.28), and neurosurgical ICUs (4.95); with patients hospitalized in lower-middle-income countries (3.05); and with patients in public hospitals (5.89).The following variables were independently associated with CAUTI: Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.01; P < .0001), female sex (aOR, 1.39; P < .0001), length of stay (LOS) before CAUTI-acquisition (aOR, 1.05; P < .0001), UC DU ratio (aOR, 1.09; P < .0001), public facilities (aOR, 2.24; P < .0001), and neurologic ICUs (aOR, 11.49; P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: CAUTI rates are higher in patients with suprapubic catheters, in middle-income countries, in public hospitals, in trauma and neurologic ICUs, and in Eastern European and Asian facilities.Based on findings regarding risk factors for CAUTI, focus on reducing LOS and UC utilization is warranted, as well as implementing evidence-based CAUTI-prevention recommendations.
METHODS: The MDS was designed in 2 phases, including a literature review and a Delphi study with content validation by an expert panel. After the literature review, a comprehensive list of administrative and clinical items was obtained. Through a two-round e-Delphi approach conducted by invited experts with clinical and research experience in the field of TBI, the final data elements were selected.
RESULTS: A MDS of TBI was assigned to 2 parts: administrative part with 5 categories including 52 data elements, and clinical part with 9 categories including 130 data elements.
CONCLUSION: For the first time in Iran, we developed a MDS specified for TBI consisting of 182 data elements. The MDS would facilitate implementing a TBI's national level registry and providing essential, comparable and standardized information.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.