Clinical trials in emergency situations.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Fluid balance neutralization secured by hemodynamic monitoring versus protocolized standard of care in patients with acute circulatory failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy: results of the GO NEUTRAL randomized controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2024
   Trial
2. Principles of research ethics: A research primer for low- and middle-income countries.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2020
   Article
3. Refining the Enrolment Process in Emergency Medicine Research.The European journal of cardiovascular medicine · 2016
   Article
4. Research in critically ill patients: standards of informed consent.Critical care (London, England) · 2007
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as