September - 2012
| Previous Next | Showing Journal 10 of 14 |
Association between systemic corticosteroids and outcomes of intensive care unit–acquired pneumoniaOtavio Tavares Ranzani, Miquel Ferrer, Mariano Esperatti, et al. Crit Care Med, 2012, 40:2552–2561 This page is only available to Crit-IQ subscribers. To view the rest of this review and gain access to our vast array of critical care teaching tools including podcasts, vodcasts, modules, exam preparation tools, teaching aids and much more, login here, or Become a Member to register |
September |
Previous Comments
| This paper raises the interesting philosophical question of what to do next. Imagine this paper had shown a benefit. This would be considered hypothesis generating, and the next step would be an RCT to confirm. We all know that this needs to be confirmed as there are a number of examples where the RCT has ultimately shown no benefit. But what are we to do when the hypothesis generating trials are negative? Its unethical to do the RCT to confirm this, so we are now in a quandary as to whether or not to abandon steroids, assuming the evidence is correct, or not abandon them, acknowledging that the evidence is suspect. | |
| Todd Fraser-11 Sep, 2012 04:29:54 PM | |
Comment
This prospective observational study provides a different look at the effect of steroids in critical illness, specifically the effect of steroids on VAP.
316 patients admitted to an ICU over a 4-year period, with duration of ventilation >48 hours, with clinical suspicion...