You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 1, July 2, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Critical Care/ Intensive Care Medicine
 •Adult Critical Care
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the highest form of clinical evidence. However, RCTs providing evidence for reduced mortality using a treatment for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are scarce. The few trials demonstrating survival advantage were incorporated in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.1 However, even some of these trials have been challenged.2 We are aware of no large RCTs in the ICU setting with beneficial results that have been confirmed by a second RCT. Given that there are also studies with survival disadvantage in the treatment arm,2 it is possible that the outcome of these studies reflects chance: 2.5% negative, 2.5% positive, and 95% no association.

Two very sophisticated trials were designed to test a survival advantage of an open lung strategy for patients receiving mechanical ventilation.3-4 Although based on sound physiological reasoning and preclinical data, both studies failed to find a benefit. An accompanying . . . [Full Text of this Article]

J. G. Zijlstra, MD, PhD
j.g.zijlstra@int.umcg.nl

J. J. M. Ligtenberg, MD, PhD
University Medical Center Groningen
Groningen, the Netherlands

A. R. J. Girbes, MD, PhD
Free University Medical Center
Amsterdam, the Netherlands



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Ventilation Strategy Using Low Tidal Volumes, Recruitment Maneuvers, and High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure for Acute Lung Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Maureen O. Meade, Deborah J. Cook, Gordon H. Guyatt, Arthur S. Slutsky, Yaseen M. Arabi, D. James Cooper, Andrew R. Davies, Lori E. Hand, Qi Zhou, Lehana Thabane, Peggy Austin, Stephen Lapinsky, Alan Baxter, James Russell, Yoanna Skrobik, Juan J. Ronco, Thomas E. Stewart, and for the Lung Open Ventilation Study Investigators
JAMA. 2008;299(6):637-645.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine—Reply
Jean-Daniel Chiche and Derek C. Angus
JAMA. 2008;300(1):43-44.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.