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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | S1 |
| Journal | Critical Care |
| Volume | 19 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 18 2015 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:CI has received honoraria and independent research grants from Fresenius-Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany; and has developed SDF imaging and is listed as inventor on related patents commercialized by MicroVision Medical under a license from the Academic Medical Center. Braedius Medical, a company owned by a relative of CI, has developed and designed a handheld microscope called CytoCam-IDF imaging. SAK-L has received honoraria for lectures on fluid therapy from B. Braun and Fresenius Kabi; and Fresenius Kabi supported her pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing blood loss in major surgery by covering the costs for biometrical analysis performed by an independent institution. SAK-L received no honorarium and funding for this publication. CP received financial support as research grants and an unrestricted academic research grant, as well as nonrestrictive research grant and consulting fees, from Abbott, Baxter, B. Braun, Cosmed, Fresenius-Kabi, Nestle Medical Nutrition, Novartis, Nutricia-Numico, Pfizer, and Solvay, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Marini et al.