Randomized Controlled Trials in ICU in the Four Highest-Impact General Medicine Journals

Author:

Kampman Jasper M.12,Sperna Weiland Nicolaas H.1,Hermanides Jeroen1,Hollmann Markus W.1,Repping Sjoerd34,Horn Janneke2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

2. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

3. Department of Health Evaluation and Appropriate Use, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

4. National Healthcare Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study ICU trials published in the four highest-impact general medicine journals by comparing them with concurrently published non-ICU trials in the same journals. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2014 and October 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. STUDY SELECTION: Original RCT publications investigating any type of intervention in any patient population. DATA EXTRACTION: ICU RCTs were defined as RCTs exclusively including patients admitted to the ICU. Year and journal of publication, sample size, study design, funding source, study outcome, type of intervention, Fragility Index (FI), and Fragility Quotient were collected. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 2,770 publications were screened. Of 2,431 original RCTs, 132 (5.4%) were ICU RCTs, gradually rising from 4% in 2014 to 7.5% in 2021. ICU RCTs and non-ICU RCTs included a comparable number of patients (634 vs 584, p = 0.528). Notable differences for ICU RCTs were the low occurrence of commercial funding (5% vs 36%, p < 0.001), the low number of RCTs that reached statistical significance (29% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and the low FI when they did reach significance (3 vs 12, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In the last 8 years, RCTs in ICU medicine made up a meaningful, and growing, portion of RCTs published in high-impact general medicine journals. In comparison with concurrently published RCTs in non-ICU disciplines, statistical significance was rare and often hinged on the outcome events of just a few patients. Increased attention should be paid to realistic expectations of treatment effects when designing ICU RCTs to detect differences in treatment effects that are reliable and clinically relevant.

Funder

European society of anaethesiology and intensive care

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3