Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Randomisation is necessary to disentangle intrinsic patient risk from effects of care
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Intensive care in the United Kingdom is certainly
underprovided relative to many developed counties. The United States
spends over 1% of its gross national product on providing intensive
care, while Britain spends around 0.05%
possibly twentyfold
less.1 But intensive care remains largely outside the
evidence based paradigm
apparently for ethical reasons. Judging the
appropriateness of intensive care provision still depends solely on
apparent unmet need and observed associations of prognostic indicators
with mortality. This week's BMJ sees another such
study.2
It seems too easy to claim benefit in intensive care on the basis of
biological plausibility and observational comparison alone. For
example, a recent Cochrane overview of 30 trials on the effect of
intravenous albumin for acute renal failure,3 which showed
significant harm, was dismissed by some enthusiasts.4 The
writings of respected and dispassionate authors who have held intensive
care to be immune from randomisation do not help this apparent
impasse.
5 6
Read all Rapid Responses