Person: González Seguel, Felipe
Loading...
Email Address
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
González Seguel
First Name
Felipe
Name
Felipe Andrés González Seguel
2 results
¿Qué estás buscando?
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Publication Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta- research protocol(2023) Gutierrez-Arias, Ruvistay; Pieper, Dawid; Nydahl, Peter; González Seguel, Felipe; Jalil, Yorschua; liveros, Maria-José; Torres-Castro, Rodrigo; Seron, PamelaIntroduction Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adults with heterogeneous methodology and results. Redundancy in conducting SRs, unclear justification when leading new SRs or updating, and discordant results of SRs on the same research question may generate research waste that makes it difficult for clinicians to keep up to date with the best available evidence. This meta- research aims to assess the redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential reasons for discordance in the results reported by SRs conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. Methods and analysis A meta- research of early mobilisation SRs in critically ill adult patients will be conducted. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The redundancy of SRs will be assessed by the degree of overlap of primary studies. In addition, the justification for conducting new SRs will be evaluated with the ‘Evidence- Based Research’ framework. The methodological quality of the SRs will be assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool, and the quality of the reports through compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses statement. To assess the potential reasons for discordance in the results of the SRs considering divergence in results and their interpretation. Ethics and dissemination As meta- research, this study does not involve the participation of people whose rights may be violated. However, this overview will be developed rigorously and systematically to achieve valid and reliable results. The findings of this meta- research study will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal related to rehabilitation, critical care or research methodologyPublication Which factors are associated with acquired weakness in the ICU? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses(2024) Fuentes, Rocío; González Seguel, Felipe; Marzuca, Gabriel; Torres, Rodrigo; Najum, Jasim; Seron, PamelaRationale: Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) is common in critically ill patients, characterized by muscle weakness and physical function loss. Determining risk factors for ICUAW poses challenges due to variations in assessment methods and limited generalizability of results from specific populations, the existing literature on these risk factors lacks a clear and comprehensive synthesis. Objective: This overview aimed to synthesize risk factors for ICUAW, categorizing its modifiable and nonmodifiable factors. Methods: An overview of systematic reviews was conducted. Six relevant databases were searched for systematic reviews. Two pairs of reviewers selected reviews following predefined criteria, where bias was evaluated. Results were qualitatively summarized and an overlap analysis was performed for meta-analyses. Results: Eighteen systematic reviews were included, comprising 24 risk factors for ICUAW. Meta-analyses were performed for 15 factors, while remaining reviews provided qualitative syntheses. Twelve reviews had low risk of bias, 4 reviews were unclear, and 2 reviews exhibited high risk of bias. The extent of overlap ranged from 0 to 23% for the corrected covered area index. Nonmodifiable factors, including advanced age, female gender, and multiple organ failure, were consistently associated with ICUAW. Modifiable factors, including neuromuscular blocking agents, hyperglycemia, and corticosteroids, yielded conflicting results. Aminoglycosides, renal replacement therapy, and norepinephrine were associated with ICUAW but with high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Multiple risk factors associated with ICUAW were identified, warranting consideration in prevention and treatment strategies. Some risk factors have produced conflicting results, and several remain underexplored, emphasizing the ongoing need for personalized studies encompassing all potential contributors to ICUAW development.