ArticleIntensive care medicine2017
Understanding patient-centredness: contrasting expert versus patient perspectives on vasopressor therapy for shock.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Corticosteroid therapy for sepsis: a clinical practice guideline.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Guideline
- Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- The intensive care medicine research agenda on septic shock.Intensive care medicine · 2017Review
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
Identifiers
27624068What 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.