Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine, 2008: III. Paediatrics, ethics, outcome research and critical care organization, sedation, pharmacology and miscellanea.

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.

1. A new mass spectrometry-based method for the quantification of histones in plasma from septic shock patients.Scientific reports · 2017
   Article
2. Prognosis Biomarkers of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock by 1H NMR Urine Metabolomics in the Intensive Care Unit.PloS one · 2015
   Article
3. A national survey of Italian physicians' attitudes towards end-of-life decisions following the death of Eluana Englaro.Intensive care medicine · 2011
   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

19 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as