ReviewCritical care (London, England)2011
Clinical review: Thinking outside the box--an iconoclastic view of current practice.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vasopressin and terlipressin in adult vasodilatory shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2012Pooled it
- Article
- Alternatives to norepinephrine in septic shock: Which agents and when?Journal of intensive medicine · 2022Review
- Reversal of the Pathophysiological Responses to Gram-Negative Sepsis by Megadose Vitamin C.Critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Invasive Blood Pressure Measurement and In-hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Hypertension.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Non-catecholamine vasopressors in the treatment of adult patients with septic shock-evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.Journal of intensive care · 2020Article
- Microcirculation vs. Mitochondria-What to Target?Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
- Hemodynamic support in the early phase of septic shock: a review of challenges and unanswered questions.Annals of intensive care · 2018Review
- Transthoracic echocardiography and mortality in sepsis: analysis of the MIMIC-III database.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Sudden cardiac arrest in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with dynamic cavity obstruction: The case for a decatecholaminisation strategy.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2018Article
- Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS: Aspects to Think about for Better Understanding, Evaluation, and Management.BioMed research international · 2018Review
- Vasopressor and Inotropic Management Of Patients With Septic Shock.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2015Article
- Complex detection, complex decisions: more detail on subclinical seizures in the acutely sick brain.Epilepsy currents · 2014Article
- Immune response in severe infection: could life-saving drugs be potentially harmful?TheScientificWorldJournal · 2013Review
- Inotropes and vasopressors: more than haemodynamics!British journal of pharmacology · 2012Article
- The hidden cost of hypotension: redefining hemodynamic management to improve patient outcomes.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Many advances in medicine have been achieved through challenging established dogma with revolutionary thought and novel practices. Each and every specialty is reinvigorated by regular re-evaluation of processes and practices in the light of new evidence and fresh conceptualization. Challenge can galvanize fresh thinking and new approaches, yet may also reinforce and strengthen traditional paradigms if the prevailing orthodoxy is subsequently revalidated. This article is a synopsis of a roundtable meeting held in Brussels in March 2010 designed specifically to confront doctrine with reasoned scientific argument, and to propose new ideas for advancing critical care practices and outcomes.
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.