ReviewCritical care (London, England)2005
Bench-to-bedside review: Resuscitation in the emergency department.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erratum: Concordance and limits between transcutaneous and arterial carbon dioxide pressure in emergency department patients with acute respiratory failure: a single-center, prospective, and observational study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Concordance and limits between transcutaneous and arterial carbon dioxide pressure in emergency department patients with acute respiratory failure: a single-center prospective observational study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2015Observational
- Influence of vagal injury on acute traumatic reaction after blast injury.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decade the practice of acute resuscitation and its monitoring have undergone significant changes. Utilization of noninvasive mechanical ventilation, goal-directed therapy, restricted fluid volume, blood transfusion and minimally invasive technology for monitoring tissue oxygenation have changed the practice of acute resuscitation. Early diagnosis and definitive treatment of the underlying cause of shock remains the mainstay for survival after successful resuscitation. Patient-centered outcome end-points, in addition to survival, are being utilized to appraise the effectiveness of treatment. Application of medical ethics to the ever changing practice of acute resuscitation has also become a societal expectation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.