Trial reportCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2013
Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) statistical analysis plan.
Trial report in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02030158 (Statistical Analysis Plan for an Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Three, International, Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trials Comparing Protocolised With Usual Resuscitation in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Statistical Analysis Plan for an Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Three, International, Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trials Comparing Protocolised With Usual Resuscitation in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: the ARISE, ProCESS and ProMISe Investigators.Intensive care medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Clinical review: Volume of fluid resuscitation and the incidence of acute kidney injury - a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2012Pooled it
- A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock.The New England journal of medicine · 2014Trial
- Proteomic changes associated with racial background and sepsis survival outcomes.Molecular omics · 2022Article
- Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Article
- Prospective meta-analysis using individual patient data in intensive care medicine.Intensive care medicine · 2010Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock study is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, three-arm, parallel-group trial of alternative resuscitation strategies for early septic shock.
objectiveTo state our analysis plan for trial data.
methodsOur plan is to guide data collection and analysis using pre-existing definitions and testing, with local consensus-based efforts where needed. We examine protocolised care (two experimental approaches) and compare this to usual "wild type" care.
resultsOur plan is to address three aims (clinical efficacy, biology of illness and recovery, and costs and cost-effectiveness) and four hypotheses, and we specify rules for handling data and determining outcomes.
conclusionBy using measures to maintain study conduct and analysis rigour, we hope to improve understanding of early septic shock resuscitation and care of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24289512PMC4081520What 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.