Clinical research into the ICU: clouds at the horizon, once again.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2017
   Article
2. What's new in ethics of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation research: too little time and too many rules?Intensive care medicine · 2015
   Article
3. Clinical research in the ICU: response to Kompanje et al.Intensive care medicine · 2014
   Article
4. Medical research in emergency research in the European Union member states: tensions between theory and practice.Intensive care medicine · 2014
   Review

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as