EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 54 / No 4 (December 2022) J Extra Corpor Technol, 54 4 (2022) 324-329 References
Free Access
Issue
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 54, Number 4, December 2022
Page(s) 324 - 329
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/202254324
Published online 15 December 2022
  1. Lamontagne F, Masse MH, Menard J, et al. Intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:2387–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Marik PE, Khangoora V, Rivera R, et al. Hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: A retrospective before-after study. Chest. 2017;151:1229–38. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fowler AA 3rd, Truwit JD, Hite RD, et al. Effect of vitamin C infusion on organ failure and biomarkers of inflammation and vascular injury in patients with sepsis and severe acute respiratory failure: The CITRIS-ALI randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1261–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fiore K. Infamous vitamin C study may rely on fraudulent data, 2022. Available at: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97865. Accessed June 18, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alderson P. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. 2004;328:476–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sidebotham D, Popovich I, Lumley T. A Bayesian analysis of mortality outcomes in multicentre clinical trials in critical care. Br J Anaesth. 2021;127:487–94. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aberegg SK, Richards DR, O’Brien JM. Delta inflation: A bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine. Crit Care . 2010;14:R77. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Laffey JG, Kavanagh BP. Negative trials in critical care: Why most research is probably wrong. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6:659–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Santacruz CA, Pereira AJ, Celis E, et al. Which multicenter randomised controlled trials in critical care medicine have shown reduced mortality? A systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1680–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:6–10. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sidebotham D. Are most randomised trials in anaesthesia and critical care wrong? An analysis using Bayes’ Theorem. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:1386–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sheldrake R. Testing a language-using parrot for telepathy. J Sci Explor. 2003;17:601–16. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sidebotham D. Understanding significance testing. Anaesthesia . 2021;76:1659–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Vail EA, Avidan MS. Trials with “non-significant” results are not insignificant trials: A common significance threshold distorts reporting and interpretation of trial results. Br J Anaesth. 2022; 129:643–6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70:129–33. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jamil T, Ly A, Morey RD, et al. Default “Gunel and Dickey” Bayes factors for contingency tables. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49:638–52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sidebotham D, Barlow CJ. The false-positive and false-negative risks for individual multicentre trials in critical care. BJA Open. 2022;1:100003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Colquhoun D. The false positive risk: A proposal concerning what to do about p-values. Am Stat. 2019;73:192–201. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sterne JAC, Murthy S, Diaz JV, et al. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020;324:1330–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. van Zwet E, Schwab S, Senn S. The statistical properties of RCTs and a proposal for shrinkage. Stat Med. 2021;40:6107–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.