Ten big mistakes in intensive care medicine.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates.Intensive care medicine · 2018
   Pooled it
2. ARDS Subphenotypes as a Guide to Therapy and Enrollment into Therapeutic Trials: Not So Fast.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
   Article
3. Respiratory Subsets in Patients with Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome for Early Prediction of Death.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
   Review
4. Distinct morphologies of arterial waveforms reveal preload-, contractility-, and afterload-deficient hemodynamic instability: An in silico simulation study.Physiological reports · 2022
   Article
5. A Target for Increased Mortality Risk in Critically Ill Patients: The Concept of Perpetuity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021
   Article
6. Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.Biomedical engineering online · 2018
   Review
7. Enhanced Recovery in Surgical Intensive Care: A Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2018
   Review
8. The APPS: an outcome score for the acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016
   Article
9. Cardiovascular Function in Intensive Care Medicine or Homo Mensura Est.BioMed research international · 2016
   Article
10. Testing current practice is no mistake.Intensive care medicine · 2015
    Article
11. Fluid Therapy: Double-Edged Sword during Critical Care?BioMed research international · 2015
    Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Testing current practice is no mistake.2015
• Commented on by
  Response to Perner et al.: testing current practice is no mistake.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as