Consensus process generates a standardized outcome set for pediatric intensive care assessment, aiding future research in German-speaking regions.
Despite substantial improvements in survival after pediatric intensive care, long-term morbidity remains frequent and insufficiently assessed. No standardized, consensus-based core outcome set (COS) tailored to German-speaking regions exists. This study developed a Pediatric Intensive Care Core Outcome (PIC-CO) set to harmonize outcome assessment and follow-up of PICU survivors for clinical practice and research in German-speaking regions. A modified Delphi process was conducted within the Section of Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (SPIE) of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine. A multiprofessional expert panel identified outcome domains and questionnaires. Following internal consensus using predefined criteria, candidate questionnaires and short-term outcomes were submitted to an external Delphi survey distributed to SPIE members. Consensus and acceptance thresholds were defined a priori. Final questionnaire selection and recommendations for follow-up time points were agreed on by the expert panel. Seventeen experts participated in the internal consensus phase. Of 65 evaluated questionnaires, 1–3 questionnaires per domain and 11 short-term outcomes were submitted to the external survey (46 respondents). All short-term outcomes and at least one questionnaire per domain reached acceptance; the majority achieved consensus. The final PIC-CO set comprises seven questionnaires across six domains and 11 short-term outcomes, alongside a structured follow-up schedule. The PIC-CO set provides the first consensus-based, pragmatically implementable COS for pediatric critical care in German-speaking countries, enabling standardized long-term assessment for clinical practice and research. Substantial overlap with international initiatives was observed, with differences mainly related to cognitive assessment and domain structuring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: