Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Apr:62:197-205.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.12.018. Epub 2020 Dec 27.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019

Affiliations
Review

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: 2019

Melanie Smith Condeni et al. J Crit Care. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize selected meta-analyses and trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy published in 2019.

Materials and methods: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 36 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 113 articles during 2019 according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria.

Results: Articles with a 1A grade, including three clinical practice guidelines, six meta-analyses, and five original research trials are reviewed here from those included in the monthly CCPLU. Clinical practice guidelines on the use of polymyxins and antiarrhythmic drugs in cardiac arrest as well as meta-analyses on antipsychotic use in delirium, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), and vasoactive medications in septic shock and cardiac arrest were summarized. Original research trials evaluated delirium, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, SUP, anticoagulation reversal, and hemostasis.

Conclusion: This clinical review and expert opinion provides summary and perspectives of clinical practice impact on influential critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2019.

Keywords: Cardiac arrest; Critical care; Drug therapy; Guideline; Review; Septic shock.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest Authors have no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7(9):e1000326. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Curran V, Matthews L, Fleet L, Simmons K, Gustafson DL, Wetsch L. A review of digital, social, and mobile technologies in health professional education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2017;37(3):195–206. 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000168. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Grade: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924–6. 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7652):1049–51. 10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008;336(7651): 995–8. 10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE. - DOI - PMC - PubMed