Is “Less be More” Still a Valid Concept in Intensive Care? A Review of Critical Care Randomized Clinical Trials from the New England Journal of Medicine
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, ISSN: 1998-359X, Vol: 28, Issue: 6, Page: 533-551
2024
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
The concept of “Less is more” has been gaining increasing awareness and acceptance in Critical Care. In 2017, we attempted to systematically answer the question “Can less be more in intensive care” with empirical data. We reviewed all the critical care randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between 1 January 2008 and 5 October 2016 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). This article attempts to repeat the earlier exercise using data from 5 October 2016 to 31 December 2023. This analysis of critical care RCTs in the NEJM has shown three findings. Approximately three-quarter of RCTs in critical care in the NEJM between 2008 and 2023 failed to show benefit or harm. In the years 2008–2016, patients in the intervention cohort had a higher mortality compared to controls, but in the years 2016–2023, the difference in overall mortality in patients in the intervention and control arms was not statistically significant. Compared to the years 2008–2016, in the years from 2016 to 2023, the number of RCTs showing harm decreased and those showing benefit increased.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85195902363&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24717; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39130397; https://www.ijccm.org/doi/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24717; https://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24717; https://www.ijccm.org/doi/pdf/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24717
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know