ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019
Thinking forward: promising but unproven ideas for future intensive care.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge gaps in extracorporeal blood purification: what would be required for its successful application in septic shock?Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Review
- Administration of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Progress toward determining the true worth of ongoing practices or value of recent innovations can be glacially slow when we insist on following the conventional stepwise scientific pathway. Moreover, a widely accepted but flawed conceptual paradigm often proves difficult to challenge, modify or reject. Yet, most experienced clinicians, educators and clinical scientists privately entertain untested ideas about how care could or should be improved, even if the supporting evidence base is currently thin or non-existent. This symposium encouraged experts to share such intriguing but unproven concepts, each based upon what the speaker considered a logical but unproven rationale. Such free interchange invited dialog that pointed toward new or neglected lines of research needed to improve care of the critically ill. In this summary of those presentations, a brief background outlines the rationale for each novel and deliberately provocative unconfirmed idea endorsed by the presenter.
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.