Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29297400›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2017

Seven unconfirmed ideas to improve future ICU practice.

John J Marini, Daniel De Backer, Can Ince, Mervyn Singer, Frank Van Haren, Martin Westphal, Paul Wischmeyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

John J MariniUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. marin002@umn.edu.
Daniel De BackerDepartment of Intensive Care, CHIREC Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Can InceDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 's-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Frank Van HarenUniversity of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
Martin WestphalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Paul WischmeyerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With imprecise definitions, inexact measurement tools, and flawed study execution, our clinical science often lags behind bedside experience and simply documents what appear to be the apparent faults or validity of ongoing practices. These impressions are later confirmed, modified, or overturned by the results of the next trial. On the other hand, insights that stem from the intuitions of experienced clinicians, scientists and educators-while often neglected-help place current thinking into proper perspective and occasionally point the way toward formulating novel hypotheses that direct future research. Both streams of information and opinion contribute to progress. In this paper we present a wide-ranging set of unproven 'out of the mainstream' ideas of our FCCM faculty, each with a defensible rationale and holding clear implications for altering bedside management. Each proposition was designed deliberately to be provocative so as to raise awareness, stimulate new thinking and initiate lively dialog.

Indexed as

Critical CareForecastingHumansResearch DesignAdaptive clinical trialsMelatoninMetabolic monitoringMicrocirculationPersonalized medicineResuscitationSepsisShockVentilator-induced lung injury

Identifiers

PMID29297400
PMCPMC5751395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.