ReviewThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2011
Infection in the critically ill--questions we should be asking.
Review in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in a Saudi Critical Care Unit: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- [First-line anti-infective treatment in sepsis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Review
- Immune response in severe infection: could life-saving drugs be potentially harmful?TheScientificWorldJournal · 2013Review
- Microbiological profile of organisms causing bloodstream infection in critically ill patients.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2012Article
- The rising problem of antimicrobial resistance in the intensive care unit.Annals of intensive care · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Best practice in infection control and management in the critically ill continues to generate considerable debate. The wide variation in current practice is witness to this continuing uncertainty. In large part this is due to the lack of a decent evidence base and to an over-reliance on deep-set dogma. Data that go against the grain are often conveniently overlooked and political imperatives frequently supervene. This article highlights some of these discrepancies and argues for a more balanced, scientific approach. In this time of financial restraint, we need to identify true priorities from both health and economic perspectives, and to see what practices can safely and effectively be modified or abandoned.
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.