ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2024
Is "Less be More" Still a Valid Concept in Intensive Care? A Review of Critical Care Randomized Clinical Trials from the New England Journal of Medicine.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2024. 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.
- The significance of joint evaluation of gastrointestinal ultrasound results and renal artery resistance index for assessing intestinal-renal syndrome in sepsis patients: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of "Less is more" has been gaining increasing awareness and acceptance in Critical Care. In 2017, we attempted to systematically answer the question "Can less be more in intensive care" with empirical data. We reviewed all the critical care randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between 1 January 2008 and 5 October 2016 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). This article attempts to repeat the earlier exercise using data from 5 October 2016 to 31 December 2023. This analysis of critical care RCTs in the NEJM has shown three findings. Approximately three-quarter of RCTs in critical care in the NEJM between 2008 and 2023 failed to show benefit or harm. In the years 2008-2016, patients in the intervention cohort had a higher mortality compared to controls, but in the years 2016-2023, the difference in overall mortality in patients in the intervention and control arms was not statistically significant. Compared to the years 2008-2016, in the years from 2016 to 2023, the number of RCTs showing harm decreased and those showing benefit increased. How to cite this article: Kapadia F, Bharadwaj S, Sharma R. Is "Less be More" Still a Valid Concept in Intensive Care? A Review of Critical Care Randomized Clinical Trials from the New England Journal of Medicine. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(6):533-551.
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.