Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320462›Full record

ReviewIntensive care medicine2024

Challenging management dogma where evidence is non-existent, weak, or outdated: part II.

Daniel A Hofmaenner, Mervyn Singer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Intensive care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Daniel A HofmaennerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9334-7753
Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK. m.singer@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1042-6350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many dogmas influence daily clinical practice, and critical care medicine is no exception. We previously highlighted the weak, questionable, and often contrary evidence base underpinning four established medical managements-loop diuretics for acute heart failure, routine use of heparin thromboprophylaxis, rate of sodium correction for hyponatremia, and 'every hour counts' for treating bacterial meningitis. We now provide four further examples in this "Dogma II" piece (a week's course of antibiotics, diabetic ketoacidosis algorithms, sodium bicarbonate to improve ventricular contractility during severe metabolic acidosis, and phosphate replacement for hypophosphatemia) where routine practice warrants re-appraisal.

Indexed as

Critical CareAlgorithmsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDiabetic KetoacidosisEvidence-Based MedicineHeart FailureHeparinHumansHyponatremiaHypophosphatemiaSodium BicarbonateAnti-Bacterial AgentsHeparinSodium BicarbonateAntibiotic treatmentDiabetic ketoacidosisDogmaMedical evidencePhosphate replacementSodium bicarbonate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.