ArticleCritical care science2024
Scientific output and organizational characteristics in Brazilian intensive care units: a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in Critical care science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of intensive care unit registries - findings from the Global Registry ICU Datasets (GRID) survey.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Global disparities in scientific publications: A 5-year analysis of 10 critical care journals.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Scientific output and intensive care units organizational characteristics: a tale of unintended consequences.Critical care science · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the associations between the scientific output of Brazilian intensive care units and their organizational characteristics.
methodsThis study is a re-analysis of a previous retrospective cohort that evaluated organizational intensive care unit characteristics and their associations with outcomes. We analyzed data from 93 intensive care units across Brazil. Intensive care units were assessed for scientific productivity and the effects of their research activities, using indicators of care for comparison. We defined the most scientifically productive intensive care units as those with numerous publications and a SCImago Journal Rank score or an H-index above the median values of the participating intensive care units.
resultsIntensive care units with more publications, higher SCImago Journal Rank scores and higher H-index scores had a greater number of certified intensivists (median of 7; IQR 5 - 10 versus 4; IQR 2 - 8; with p < 0.01 for the comparison between intensive care units with more versus fewer publications). Intensive care units with higher SCImago Journal Rank scores and H-index scores also had a greater number of fully implemented protocols (median of 8; IQR 6 - 8 versus 5; IQR 3.75 - 7.25; p < 0.01 for the comparison between intensive care units with higher versus lower SCImago Journal Rank scores).
conclusionsScientific engagement was associated with better staffing patterns and greater protocol implementation, suggesting that research activity may be an indicator of better intensive care unit organization and care delivery.
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.