ReviewCritical care (London, England)2010
Year in review 2009: Critical Care--shock.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac function in patients with early cirrhosis during maximal beta-adrenergic drive: a dobutamine stress study.PloS one · 2014Article
- Lipopolysaccharide prolongs action potential duration in HL-1 mouse cardiomyocytes.American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2012Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The research papers on shock that have been published in Critical Care throughout 2009 are related to four major subjects: first, alterations of heart function and, second, the role of the sympathetic central nervous system during sepsis; third, the impact of hemodynamic support using vasopressin or its synthetic analog terlipressin, and different types of fluid resuscitation; as well as, fourth, experimental studies on the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The present review summarizes the key results of these studies together with a brief discussion in the context of the relevant scientific and clinical background published both in this and other journals.
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.