A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas

John J. Marini, Luciano Gattinoni, Can Ince, Sibylle Kozek-Langenecker, Ravindra L. Mehta, Claude Pichard, Martin Westphal, Paul Wischmeyer, Jean Louis Vincent

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Medical practice is rooted in our dependence on the best available evidence from incremental scientific experimentation and rigorous clinical trials. Progress toward determining the true worth of ongoing practice or suggested innovations can be glacially slow when we insist on following the stepwise scientific pathway, and a prevailing but imperfect paradigm often proves difficult to challenge. Yet most experienced clinicians and clinical scientists harbor strong thoughts about how care could or should be improved, even if the existing evidence base is thin or lacking. One of our Future of Critical Care Medicine conference sessions encouraged sharing of novel ideas, each presented with what the speaker considers a defensible rationale. Our intent was to stimulate insightful thinking and free interchange, and perhaps to point in new directions toward lines of innovative theory and improved care of the critically ill. In what follows, a brief background outlines the rationale for each novel and deliberately provocative unconfirmed idea endorsed by the presenter.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberS1
JournalCritical Care
Volume19
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 18 2015

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Critical Illness
Medicine
Clinical Trials
Direction compound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Marini, J. J., Gattinoni, L., Ince, C., Kozek-Langenecker, S., Mehta, R. L., Pichard, C., ... Vincent, J. L. (2015). A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas. Critical Care, 19, [S1]. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc14719

A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas. / Marini, John J.; Gattinoni, Luciano; Ince, Can; Kozek-Langenecker, Sibylle; Mehta, Ravindra L.; Pichard, Claude; Westphal, Martin; Wischmeyer, Paul; Vincent, Jean Louis.

In: Critical Care, Vol. 19, S1, 18.12.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Marini, JJ, Gattinoni, L, Ince, C, Kozek-Langenecker, S, Mehta, RL, Pichard, C, Westphal, M, Wischmeyer, P & Vincent, JL 2015, 'A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas', Critical Care, vol. 19, S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc14719
Marini JJ, Gattinoni L, Ince C, Kozek-Langenecker S, Mehta RL, Pichard C et al. A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas. Critical Care. 2015 Dec 18;19. S1. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc14719
Marini, John J. ; Gattinoni, Luciano ; Ince, Can ; Kozek-Langenecker, Sibylle ; Mehta, Ravindra L. ; Pichard, Claude ; Westphal, Martin ; Wischmeyer, Paul ; Vincent, Jean Louis. / A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas. In: Critical Care. 2015 ; Vol. 19.
@article{d53fdd462cd743a48d99a397591f4e46,
title = "A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas",
abstract = "Medical practice is rooted in our dependence on the best available evidence from incremental scientific experimentation and rigorous clinical trials. Progress toward determining the true worth of ongoing practice or suggested innovations can be glacially slow when we insist on following the stepwise scientific pathway, and a prevailing but imperfect paradigm often proves difficult to challenge. Yet most experienced clinicians and clinical scientists harbor strong thoughts about how care could or should be improved, even if the existing evidence base is thin or lacking. One of our Future of Critical Care Medicine conference sessions encouraged sharing of novel ideas, each presented with what the speaker considers a defensible rationale. Our intent was to stimulate insightful thinking and free interchange, and perhaps to point in new directions toward lines of innovative theory and improved care of the critically ill. In what follows, a brief background outlines the rationale for each novel and deliberately provocative unconfirmed idea endorsed by the presenter.",
author = "Marini, {John J.} and Luciano Gattinoni and Can Ince and Sibylle Kozek-Langenecker and Mehta, {Ravindra L.} and Claude Pichard and Martin Westphal and Paul Wischmeyer and Vincent, {Jean Louis}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1186/cc14719",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1466-609X",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A few of our favorite unconfirmed ideas

AU - Marini, John J.

AU - Gattinoni, Luciano

AU - Ince, Can

AU - Kozek-Langenecker, Sibylle

AU - Mehta, Ravindra L.

AU - Pichard, Claude

AU - Westphal, Martin

AU - Wischmeyer, Paul

AU - Vincent, Jean Louis

PY - 2015/12/18

Y1 - 2015/12/18

N2 - Medical practice is rooted in our dependence on the best available evidence from incremental scientific experimentation and rigorous clinical trials. Progress toward determining the true worth of ongoing practice or suggested innovations can be glacially slow when we insist on following the stepwise scientific pathway, and a prevailing but imperfect paradigm often proves difficult to challenge. Yet most experienced clinicians and clinical scientists harbor strong thoughts about how care could or should be improved, even if the existing evidence base is thin or lacking. One of our Future of Critical Care Medicine conference sessions encouraged sharing of novel ideas, each presented with what the speaker considers a defensible rationale. Our intent was to stimulate insightful thinking and free interchange, and perhaps to point in new directions toward lines of innovative theory and improved care of the critically ill. In what follows, a brief background outlines the rationale for each novel and deliberately provocative unconfirmed idea endorsed by the presenter.

AB - Medical practice is rooted in our dependence on the best available evidence from incremental scientific experimentation and rigorous clinical trials. Progress toward determining the true worth of ongoing practice or suggested innovations can be glacially slow when we insist on following the stepwise scientific pathway, and a prevailing but imperfect paradigm often proves difficult to challenge. Yet most experienced clinicians and clinical scientists harbor strong thoughts about how care could or should be improved, even if the existing evidence base is thin or lacking. One of our Future of Critical Care Medicine conference sessions encouraged sharing of novel ideas, each presented with what the speaker considers a defensible rationale. Our intent was to stimulate insightful thinking and free interchange, and perhaps to point in new directions toward lines of innovative theory and improved care of the critically ill. In what follows, a brief background outlines the rationale for each novel and deliberately provocative unconfirmed idea endorsed by the presenter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978872857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978872857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/cc14719

DO - 10.1186/cc14719

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84978872857

VL - 19

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1466-609X

M1 - S1

ER -