Intrahospital transport of critically ill patients (excluding newborns) recommendations of the Société de Réanimation de Langue Fran？aise (SRLF), the Société Fran？aise d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR), and the Société Fran？aise de Médecine d'Urgence (SFMU)

These recommendations were developed by a Working Group brought together at the initiative of the French-Language Society of Intensive Care (Société de Réanimation de Langue Fran？aise (SRLF)). The experts comprising this group wrote a background text justifying each of the five fields of application that were previously defined by the Organizing Committee. The recommendations for pediatric patients were included in the relevant fields alongside the recommendations for adults. These expert recommendations constitute a contribution to the standard risk evaluation protocol and to the quality of care improvement program elaborated by professional societies in our discipline. The recommendations are mainly based on data from prospective or retrospective observational studies and international consensus documents. The recommendations are proposed and discussed individually, with each expert (or expert subgroup) obliged to provide scientific evidence to justify the basis for the recommendation, as well as the level of recommendation, each of which was subject to modification according to the remarks made by the rest of the expert group. In a second phase, the recommendations were graded by the whole expert group. The objective was not necessarily to arrive at a single consensus on the level and grade of recommendation for all the guidelines but rather to clearly identify areas where opinions converged, which would be the basis for the recommendations, as well as areas where disagreement persisted, which could be the object of further research.Each recommendation was graded by each expert according to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness rating method, using repeated rounds of grading after exclusion of the extreme values (highly deviant expert ratings). Each expert graded recommendations based on a scale from 1 to 9 (with 1 corresponding to the existence of "total disagreement, " "absence of proof, " or "formal contraindication" and 9 corresponding to "total agreement, " "formal