Trial reportIntensive care medicine2016
Nurses versus physician-led interhospital critical care transport: a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Effect of implementing an evidence-based clinical practice intra-hospital transport guideline for hospitalized children: a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Emergency critical care: closing the gap between onset of critical illness and intensive care unit admission.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Review
- Mobile Critical Care in Resource-Limited Settings: An Unmet Need.Annals of global health · 2024Review
- The association of intensive care capacity transfers with survival in COVID-19 patients from a Scottish district general hospital: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2023Article
- Comparison of patient characteristics and long-term mortality between transferred and non-transferred COVID-19 patients in Dutch intensive care units: A national cohort study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- The QUality of Interhospital Transportation in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine (QUIT-EMR) score: a cross-validation study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Collective Critical Care Ambulance: an innovative transportation of critical care patients by bus in COVID-19 pandemic response.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- [Appropriate allocation of resources for interhospital transfer in emergency medical service-is a physician in the dispatch center helpful?]Der Anaesthesist · 2020Article
- Incidence and Risk Factors of Clinical Deterioration during Inter-Facility Transfer of Critically Ill Patients; a Cohort Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Article
- [Tele-emergency physician : New care concept in emergency medicine].Der Unfallchirurg · 2019Review
- Observational
- Interhospital critical care transports: a safe trip indeed!Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
- Interhospital critical care transports: have a safe trip!Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
- Into the out: safety issues in interhospital transport of the critically ill.Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRegionalization and concentration of critical care increases the need for interhospital transport. However, optimal staffing of ground critical care transport has not been evaluated.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint non-inferiority trial, critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation transported by interhospital ground critical care transport were randomized between transport staffed by a dedicated team comprising a critical care nurse and paramedic (nurses group) or a dedicated team including a critical care physician (nurses + physician group). The primary outcome was the number of patients with critical events, both clinical and technical, during transport. Clinical events included decrease in blood pressure, oxygen saturation, or temperature, blood loss, new cardiac arrhythmias, or death. Non-inferiority was assumed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference lies below the non-inferiority margin of 3 %.
resultsOf 618 eligible transported critically ill patients, 298 could be analyzed after randomization and allocation to the nurses group (n = 147) or nurses + physician group (n = 151). The percentages of patients with critical events were 16.3 % (24 incidents in 147 transports) in the nurses group and 15.2 % (23 incidents in 151 transports) in the nurses + physician group (difference 1.1 %, two-sided 90 % CI [-5.9 to 8.1]). Critical events occurred in both groups at a higher than the expected (0-1 %) rate. In the nurses group consultations for physician assistance were requested in 8.2 % (12 in 147 transports), all of which were performed prior to transport.
conclusionsThe number of patients with critical events did not markedly differ between critical care transports staffed by a critical care nurse and paramedic compared to a team including a critical care physician. However, as a result of an unexpected higher rate of critical events in both groups recorded by an electronic health record, non-inferiority of nurse-led interhospital critical transport could not be established ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN39701540 ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.