ArticleBMJ open2021
Early ve
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03680963 (Early Versus Differed Arterial Catheterization in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Circulatory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Early Versus Differed Arterial Catheterization in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Circulatory Failure: A Multicentre, Open-label, Pragmatic, Randomised, Non-inferiority Controlled Trial (EVERDAC Trial)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How can non-inferiority studies with mortality end points be ethically justified?Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Intra-arterial catheters: An evidence-based review of device design, function and application.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of peripheral indwelling arterial catheter for haemodynamic monitoring is widespread in the intensive care unit and is recommended in patients with shock. However, there is no evidence that the arterial catheter could improve patient's outcome, whereas the burden of morbidity generated is significant (pain, thrombosis, infections). We hypothesise that patients with shock may be managed without an arterial catheter. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EVERDAC study is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing a less invasive intervention (ie, no arterial catheter insertion until felt absolutely needed, according to predefined safety criteria) or usual care (ie, systematic arterial catheter insertion in the early hours of shock). 1010 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality by 28 days after inclusion. A health economic analysis will be carried out. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Île de France V, registration number 61606 CAT 2, 19 july 2018) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03680963.
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.