Positive outcomes, mortality rates, and publication bias in septic shock trials

Intensive Care Medicine

Volumn 44, Issue 9, 2018, Pages 1584-1585

  de Grooth, Harm Jan ^a   Parienti, Jean Jacques ^b,c   Postema, Jonne ^a   Loer, Stephan A ^a   Oudemans van Straaten, Heleen M ^a   Girbes, Armand R ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b CAEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE ROUEN   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; LETTER; MORTALITY RATE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SEPTIC SHOCK; MORTALITY; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SHOCK, SEPTIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85048796751     PISSN: 03424642     EISSN: 14321238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5258-x     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Perner A, Gordon AC, Angus DC et al (2017) The intensive care medicine research agenda on septic shock. Intensive Care Med 43:1294–1305. 10.1007/s00134-017-4821-1
2. Niven DJ, McCormick TJ, Straus SE et al (2018) Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review. BMC Med 16:26. 10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6
3. de Grooth H-J, Postema J, Loer SA et al (2018) Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates. Intensive Care Med 44:311–322. 10.1007/s00134-018-5134-8
4. Pettilä V, Hjortrup PB, Jakob SM et al (2016) Control groups in recent septic shock trials: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 42:1912–1921. 10.1007/s00134-016-4444-y
5. Vincent JJ-L, Martin-Loeches I, Annane D (2016) What patient data should be collected in this randomized controlled trial in sepsis? Intensive Care Med 42:2011–2013. 10.1007/s00134-016-4560-8