ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2009
Getting it right: optimizing the patient and technique for the procedure.
Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The methodological approach to decision making in optimizing medical care has focused on using the best available evidence with the primary endpoint being patient outcome. Through this emphasis, quality becomes relegated as the quintessential factor in determining application of medical intervention and in directing resource allocation. When evidence is inconclusive or absent, then clinical judgment becomes elevated in the decision analysis schema. The paucity of well designed controlled trials in perfusion technology has resulted in a greater reliance on clinical judgment than published information. This has created an environment where significant variability exists throughout the perfusion community. The following report will discuss several reasons for this variability, and describe techniques where the preponderance of evidence is available supporting inclusion in perfusion practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20092089PMC4813530What 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.