» Articles » PMID: 18379260

Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trials Evaluating Mortality in Intensive Care: Doomed to Fail?

Overview
Journal Crit Care Med
Date 2008 Apr 2
PMID 18379260
Citations 66
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To determine how many multicenter, randomized controlled trials have been published that assess mortality as a primary outcome in the adult intensive care unit population, and to evaluate their methodologic quality.

Data Source: A sensitive search strategy for randomized controlled trials was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and in MedLine using the PubMed interface.

Study Selection: All publications of adult, multicenter randomized controlled trials carried out in the intensive care unit, with mortality as a primary outcome, and including >50 patients were selected.

Data Extraction: Seventy-two randomized controlled trials were retrieved and were classified according to their effect on mortality: beneficial, detrimental, or neutral.

Data Synthesis: Ten of the studies reported a positive impact of the studied intervention on mortality, seven studies reported a detrimental effect of the intervention, and 55 studies showed no effect on mortality.

Conclusions: This literature search demonstrates that relatively few of the randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units and using mortality as a primary outcome show a beneficial impact of the intervention on the survival of critically ill patients. Methodological limitations of some of the randomized controlled trials may have prevented positive results. Other forms of evidence and end points other than mortality need to be considered when evaluating interventions in critically ill patients.

Citing Articles

Death by p-value: the overreliance on p-values in critical care research.

Patel S, Green A Crit Care. 2025; 29(1):73.

PMID: 39934845 PMC: 11816520. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-025-05307-9.


Sublingual microcirculatory assessment on admission independently predicts the outcome of old intensive care patients suffering from shock.

Bruno R, Schemmelmann M, Hornemann J, Moecke H, Demirtas F, Palici L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):25668.

PMID: 39463395 PMC: 11514226. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-77357-y.


Comparative evaluation of early treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus ceftazidime/avibactam for non-COVID-19 patients with pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Lodise T, Obi E, Watanabe A, Yucel E, Min J, Nathanson B J Antimicrob Chemother. 2024; 79(11):2954-2964.

PMID: 39258877 PMC: 11531822. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkae313.


Emergency critical care: closing the gap between onset of critical illness and intensive care unit admission.

Dunser M, Noitz M, Tschoellitsch T, Bruckner M, Brunner M, Eichler B Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2024; 136(23-24):651-661.

PMID: 38755419 PMC: 11632058. DOI: 10.1007/s00508-024-02374-w.


Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review.

Han R, Acosta J, Shakeri Z, Ioannidis J, Topol E, Rajpurkar P Lancet Digit Health. 2024; 6(5):e367-e373.

PMID: 38670745 PMC: 11068159. DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00047-5.