ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2020
[Laboratory testing in intensive care medicine].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Core curriculum Medical intensive care medicine of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN)].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the tremendous technological developments in medicine, careful history-taking and clinical examination remain the cornerstones of diagnostics. Numerous laboratory tests are ordered in intensive care and emergency medicine. The rate of overutilization of these tests during initial patient admission is almost 50%. Patient history may be frequently insufficient for conducting targeted laboratory testing, and concern about not overlooking a pathology also contributes to laboratory test overutilization. On the other hand, laboratory test profiles are frequently defined a priori to simplify the management process. However, these profiles are commonly based on symptoms rather than on a suspected diagnosis. Several laboratory variables are outside the normal range in critically ill patients. However, normal ranges are defined on the basis of data from healthy subjects, and these do not allow for a clear distinction between stress adaptation and clinically relevant changes that require correction. Pathophysiological changes due to the acute injury in critically ill patients and the reaction of the organism to the injury or even to the treatment itself can lead to changes in laboratory values. Untargeted laboratory tests contribute to iatrogenic anemia and increased costs. The results of such tests are either hardly noticed or, in the worst case, lead to further unnecessary diagnostic steps and unjustified therapeutic measures. Point-of-care laboratory tests, including blood gas analysis, blood count, serum electrolytes, and lactate, to assess the patient's homeostatic state and laboratory data for the relevant critical care scores are uniformly required. Beyond that, every laboratory test should be chosen wisely based on a concrete clinical question.
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.