Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A blind clinical evaluation committee should, in theory, make data of a randomized clinical trial stronger, not weaker

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dhainaut JF, Laterre PR, LaRosa SP, Levy H, Garber GE, Heiselman D, Kinasewitz GT, Light RB, Morris P, Schein R, Sollet JP, Bates BM, Utterback BG, Maki D (2003) The clinical evaluation committee in a large multicenter phase 3 trial of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in patients with severe sepsis (PROWESS) : role, methodology and results. Crit Care Med 31:2291–2301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sprung CL, Finch RG , Thijs LG, Glauser MP (1996) International sepsis trial (INTERSEPT): role and impact of a clinical evaluation committee. Crit Care Med 24:1441–1447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Panacek EA, Marshall J, Albertsen T et al. (2000) Effect of a clinical evaluation committee explicit review on classification of patients and prediction of mortality in the MONARCS sepsis trial. Crit Care Med 28:A197, Abst 609

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ely WE, Angus DC, Williams MD Bates B, Qualy R, Bernard GR (2003) Drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment of older patients with severe sepsis. CID 37:187–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhainaut JF, Laterre PF, Janes JM, Bernard GR, Artigas A, Bakker J, Riess H, Basson BR, Charpentier J, Utterback BG, Vincent JL (2003) Recombinant Human Activated protein C worldwide evaluation in sepsis (PROWESS) study group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the treatment of severe sepsis patients with multiple-organ dysfunction: data from the PROWESS trial. Intensive Care Med 29:894–903

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J, Dellamonica P, Gouin F, Lepoutre A, Mercier JC, Offenstadt G, Regnier B (1995) Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock in adults. A multi-center prospective study in intensive care units. French ICU Group for Severe Sepsis. JAMA 274:968–974

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fondation Hopital Saint-Joseph, 185 rue Raymond Losserand, 75014, Paris, France

    J. Carlet

Authors
  1. J. Carlet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Carlet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlet, J. A blind clinical evaluation committee should, in theory, make data of a randomized clinical trial stronger, not weaker. Intensive Care Med 30, 994 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2245-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2245-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation