Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31464728›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2019

Strategies to effect change in the ICU.

David J Wallace

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David J WallaceUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Understanding Regional Critical Care Delivery in Acute Respiratory FailureK08HL122478 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WALLACE, DAVID JOHN · 2015 to 2018
$606k
NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL122478
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo provide an update on implementation efforts in the care of critically ill patients, with a focus on work published in the last 2 years. RECENT

findingsOnly half of surveyed members of the multidisciplinary care team in the ICU were aware of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and of those that were, approximately one-third reported no implementation of the recommendations. Barriers to implementation of the ABCDE bundle extend to beyond patient-level domains, and include clinician-related, protocol-related, and other domains. Prospective audit and feedback approaches have demonstrated moderate success for improving the quality of antibiotic prescription practices in the ICU. SUMMARY: Clinical research in intensive care has moved beyond simple discovery and dissemination. Best practices must be applied to effect change in ICU care, requiring the application of principles from implementation science. Future work should move beyond simple before-after evaluations to provide a stronger case for causal inference following implementation efforts.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care Units

Identifiers

PMID31464728
PMCPMC7001896
OpenAlexW2970564133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.