Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19847
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLandoni, Giovanni-
dc.contributor.authorPieri, Marina-
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Paul J-
dc.contributor.authorBellomo, Rinaldo-
dc.date2018-10-30-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-26T00:51:10Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-26T00:51:10Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationMinerva anestesiologica 2019; 85(2): 194-200-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19847-
dc.description.abstractIt is a common observation that many multicenter randomized controlled trials (mRCT) performed in critically ill patients do not achieve the positive findings often seen in single center studies (sRCT). This has, of course, relevant consequences for clinical practice, as mRCTs have higher scientific validity compared to sRCTs. The aim of this manuscript was to review and discuss the several potential causes of this phenomenon and to relate them to the future of mRCTs in critical care medicine. Overall, this seems to recall the old mythologic story of Achilles and the tortoise: although mRCTs (i.e. Achilles) are much more powerful, indeed, they always arrive later in time compared to the sRCTs (i.e. the tortoise) from which they were powered. However, sRCTs are more prone to several bias compared to mRCTs, such as local effect bias, selection and performance bias, detection and reporting bias, analysis and attrition bias, concomitant therapy bias, low fragility index and publication bias. In this sense, it is high time the critical care community should see the positive findings of sRTCs with a very high level of scientific caution, unless they are confirmed by mRCTs. MRCTs represent the final step of the process of evidence-based medicine and in the end (however slowly and painfully) such evidence catches up with sRCT and truly helps changes practice worldwide.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.titleWhy do multicenter randomized controlled trials not confirm the positive findings of single center randomized controlled trials in acute care?-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleMinerva anestesiologica-
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University School of Public, Clayton, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationHealth and Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italyen
dc.identifier.affiliationVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Itayen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Itayen
dc.identifier.affiliationMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealanden
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealanden
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.23736/S0375-9393.18.13070-7-
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-1650-8939-
dc.identifier.pubmedid30394068-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
local.name.researcherBellomo, Rinaldo
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptIntensive Care-
crisitem.author.deptData Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

10
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.