Log in | Register

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

Harm-Jan de Grooth| Jean-Jacques Parienti| Jonne Postema| Stephan A. Loer| Heleen M. Oudemans-van Straaten| Armand R. Girbes
Letter
Volume 44, Issue 9 / September , 2018

Pages 1584 - 1585

No abstract available.

References

  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4560-8

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement