I completely agree that if this was entirely driven by a reduction in vasopressors then this is more of a process measure than a patient centred outcome, but the supplement suggests ventilation and RRT were also reduced

It didn’t change mortality but reduced organ support by 1 day. Is this not a concrete outcome?

If we design trials to detect superiority based on P<0.05, should we then throw them out as not sufficiently convincing because P=0.04?

I’d be more concerned whether this is showing the benefit of a complex CRT protocol or a clinician at the bedside.

I don’t think it was site selection, although some of our best recruiting sites were maybe in somewhat less diverse parts of the country. Interesting to reflect on whether there was any lack of equipoise.

Interesting point, Jack. If it reflected the UK population of ventilated patients (see supplement) we’d have expected more like 500 black patients so yes, somewhat under-represented but we would not have anticipated large numbers.

Try criticalcarereviews.com/meetings/ccr25

Perfect demonstration of why a control is essential…

I think you’ll find 22/7 is a much more rational date to celebrate #piday

But seriously, while some of us care a lot about this, the evidence (not least the latest update to the Declaration of Helsinki) suggests others less so

Are you just goading @statsepi.bsky.social here?