ReviewJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Protocol Failure Detection: The Conflation of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Respiratory Dysfunction.
Review in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. 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.
- Inherent safety risks of guidelines derived from "cause-agnostic" randomized controlled trials: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In medicine, protocols are applied to assure the provision of the treatment with the greatest probability of success. However, the development of protocols is based on the determination of the best intervention for the group. If the group is heterogeneous, there will always be a subset of patients for which the protocol will fail. Furthermore, over time, heterogeneity of the group may not be stable, so the percentage of patients for which a given protocol may fail may change depending on the dynamic patient mix in the group. This was thrown into stark focus during the severe acute respiratory syndrome-2 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. When a COVID-19 patient presented meeting SIRS or the Berlin Criteria, these patients met the criteria for entry into the sepsis protocol and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) protocol, respectively and were treated accordingly. This was perceived to be the correct response because these patients met the criteria for the "group" definitions of sepsis and/or ARDS. However, the application of these protocols to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection had never been studied. Initially, poor outcomes were blamed on protocol noncompliance or some unknown patient factor. This initial perception is not surprising as these protocols are standards and were perceived as comprising the best possible evidence-based care. While the academic response to the pandemic was robust, recognition that existing protocols were failing might have been detected sooner if protocol failure detection had been integrated with the protocols themselves. In this review, we propose that, while protocols are necessary to ensure that minimum standards of care are met, protocols need an additional feature, integrated protocol failure detection, which provides an output responsive to protocol failure in real time so other treatment options can be considered and research efforts rapidly focused.
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.