Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22730867›Full record

ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2012

Campaigning for safety.

Alan F Merry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alan F MerryUniversity of Auckland and Green Lane, Department of Anesthesia, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. a.merry@auckland.ac.nz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are four challenges to practicing evidence-based medicine: obtaining the evidence; evaluating the evidence; promulgating the evidence; and persuading practitioners to adopt the evidence and practice according to the evidence. The Perfusion Down Under (PDU) Collaboration addresses the first three. The fourth is more difficult, and it typically takes many years for new evidence to be adopted into widespread practice. In the case of innovations related to patient safety, evidence from randomized controlled trials is often very expensive to obtain. Other methods of evaluation may be more appropriate, but these do need to be robust and to take account of the constructs underlying the innovations and the context in which they are to be implemented. In the United States, The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) aims (among other things) to promote the adoption of best practices and effective innovations. The IHI has articulated a useful framework for doing this. Measurement is fundamental to quality improvement, and sustainable change is likely to be more readily achieved if claims are supported by credible, measurable, and clinically relevant outcome data. The PDU is well placed to support quality improvement in perfusion by providing such data.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal CirculationPatient SafetyAustraliaEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PromotionHumansMedical ErrorsNew ZealandSafety Management

Identifiers

PMID22730867
PMCPMC4557441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.