Translational research in sepsis - an ultimate challenge?

Tim G Kampmeier, Christian Ertmer, Sebastian Rehberg
{"title":"Translational research in sepsis - an ultimate challenge?","authors":"Tim G Kampmeier,&nbsp;Christian Ertmer,&nbsp;Sebastian Rehberg","doi":"10.1186/2040-7378-3-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p> In the era of evidence-based medicine, large, randomized, controlled, multicenter studies represent the \"summit of evidence\". In contrast to specialties like cardiology, the majority of randomized, controlled trials in critical care medicine, however, have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit; notably, despite encouraging results from experimental and phase-II clinical studies. The difficulty in translating our theoretical knowledge into successful multicenter randomized, controlled trials and subsequent treatment recommendations may represent one reason, why the mortality of septic shock still averages between 40-60%, although our knowledge about the underlying pathophysiology has considerably increased and international guidelines have widely been implemented. The present article elucidates some of the difficulties in translating research from bench to bedside.</p>","PeriodicalId":12158,"journal":{"name":"Experimental & Translational Stroke Medicine","volume":"3 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/2040-7378-3-14","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental & Translational Stroke Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/2040-7378-3-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In the era of evidence-based medicine, large, randomized, controlled, multicenter studies represent the "summit of evidence". In contrast to specialties like cardiology, the majority of randomized, controlled trials in critical care medicine, however, have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit; notably, despite encouraging results from experimental and phase-II clinical studies. The difficulty in translating our theoretical knowledge into successful multicenter randomized, controlled trials and subsequent treatment recommendations may represent one reason, why the mortality of septic shock still averages between 40-60%, although our knowledge about the underlying pathophysiology has considerably increased and international guidelines have widely been implemented. The present article elucidates some of the difficulties in translating research from bench to bedside.

败血症的转化研究——终极挑战?
在循证医学时代,大型、随机、对照、多中心的研究代表了“证据的顶峰”。然而,与心脏病学等专科不同的是,重症监护医学的大多数随机对照试验都未能证明对生存有好处;值得注意的是,尽管实验和ii期临床研究取得了令人鼓舞的结果。将我们的理论知识转化为成功的多中心随机对照试验和随后的治疗建议的困难可能是一个原因,为什么脓毒性休克的死亡率平均仍然在40-60%之间,尽管我们对潜在病理生理学的了解已经大大增加,国际指南已经广泛实施。本文阐明了将研究成果从实验室转化为临床的一些困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信