Improved survival in critically ill patients: are large RCTs more useful than personalized medicine? We are not sure.

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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2017
   Pooled it
2. Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives.Critical care (London, England) · 2024
   Review
3. Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric and Neonatal Patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2021
   Review
4. Evidence or belief-based medicine? Ten doubts.Intensive care medicine · 2017
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as