Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25927593›Full record

SynthesisChest2015

The Volume-Outcome Relationship in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Yên-Lan Nguyen, David J Wallace, Youri Yordanov, Ludovic Trinquart, Josefin Blomkvist, Derek C Angus, Jeremy M Kahn, Philippe Ravaud, Bertrand Guidet

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chest, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of telehealth in sepsis care: A systematic review.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Be-SNAP: the Belgian Sepsis National Action Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Yên-Lan NguyenAnesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Department, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris Descartes University, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique INSERM U1136, UPMC Université Paris 06, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. Electronic address: yenlanc.nguyen@gmail.com.
David J WallaceCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Youri YordanovClinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Emergency Department, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
Ludovic TrinquartClinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; French Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Paris, France.
Josefin BlomkvistClinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; French Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Paris, France.
Derek C AngusCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Jeremy M KahnCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
Philippe RavaudClinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; French Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Paris, France.
Bertrand GuidetInstitut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique INSERM U1136, UPMC Université Paris 06, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France; Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000005 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$50.8M
Understanding Regional Critical Care Delivery in Acute Respiratory FailureK08HL122478 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WALLACE, DAVID JOHN · 2015 to 2018
$606k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000005NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL122478
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically review the research on volume and outcome relationships in critical care.

methodsFrom January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2014, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing the relationship between admission volume and clinical outcomes in critical illness. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Of 127 studies reviewed, 46 met inclusion criteria, covering seven clinical conditions. Two investigators independently reviewed each article using a standardized form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results.

resultsOverall, 29 of the studies (63%) reported a statistically significant association between higher admission volume and improved outcomes. The magnitude of the association (mortality OR between the lowest vs highest stratum of volume centers), as well as the thresholds used to characterize high volume, varied across clinical conditions. Critically ill patients with cardiovascular (n = 7, OR = 1.49 [1.11-2.00]), respiratory (n = 12, OR = 1.20 [1.04-1.38]), severe sepsis (n = 4, OR = 1.17 [1.03-1.33]), hepato-GI (n = 3, OR = 1.30 [1.08-1.78]), neurologic (n = 3, OR = 1.38 [1.22-1.57]), and postoperative admission diagnoses (n = 3, OR = 2.95 [1.05-8.30]) were more likely to benefit from admission to higher-volume centers compared with lower-volume centers. Studies that controlled for ICU or hospital organizational factors were less likely to find a significant volume-outcome relationship than studies that did not control for these factors.

conclusionsCritically ill patients generally benefit from care in high-volume centers, with more substantial benefits in selected high-risk conditions. This relationship may in part be mediated by specific ICU and hospital organizational factors.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAdultCritical CareHospital MortalityHumansPatient Admission

Identifiers

PMID25927593
PMCPMC4493880

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.