ArticleIntensive care medicine2016
What patient data should be collected in this randomized controlled trial in sepsis?
Article 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Antibiotic Stewardship: Dead Bugs do not Mutate.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2022Article
- Septic shock: ECMO beyond ARDS? Introducing the Simon two-stage protocol when randomisation is considered unethical.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- ESICM/ESCMID task force on practical management of invasive candidiasis in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Positive outcomes, mortality rates, and publication bias in septic shock trials.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Sepsis: find me, manage me, and stop me!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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Identifiers
27704151What 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.