Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

      *

      Blood Purification

      S. Karger AG

      Acute kidney injury, Continuous renal replacement therapy, Fluids, Sepsis, Cardiorenal syndrome

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. Objective: Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. Methods: Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. Results and Conclusions: Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, p = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited >100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; p < 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics ( p = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          BPU
          Blood Purif
          10.1159/issn.0253-5068
          Blood Purification
          S. Karger AG
          0253-5068
          1421-9735
          2020
          November 2020
          08 April 2020
          : 49
          : 6
          : 708-712
          Affiliations
          Center for Critical Care Nephrology, CRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
          Author notes
          *John A. Kellum, MD, MCCM, Center for Critical Care Nephrology, CRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3347 Forbes Avenue, Suite 220, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (USA), E-Mail kellumja@upmc.edu
          Article
          507422 Blood Purif 2020;49:708–712
          10.1159/000507422
          32268336
          © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Tables: 2, Pages: 5
          Categories
          Research Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article