Read on Twitter
SCCM’s top-ten articles from the last decade reveal why citation-based ranking of journals is nuts. these articles are ironically among the *worst* articles published in SCCM... https://twitter.com/sccm/status/1343182095447896064
heading up the list we have the surviving sepsis guidelines. these guidelines are ossified and substantively incorrect, as explored here:
https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/sepsis-myths/
and in this petition:
https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/ssc-petition/
and summarized here:
https://emcrit.org/ibcc/sepsis/#brief_history_of_septic_shock_treatment
https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/sepsis-myths/
and in this petition:
https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/ssc-petition/
and summarized here:
https://emcrit.org/ibcc/sepsis/#brief_history_of_septic_shock_treatment
note the juxtaposition of a study that volume overload is harmful... right underneath a guideline that promotes volume overload. #irony
and finally at the bottom of the list we have studies promoting the zombified delusion that giving antibiotics within an hour will reduce mortality. c’mon folks, seriously - correlation ain’t causation. https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/the-fallacy-of-time-to-intervention-studies/
this should hopefully serve as a reminder that chasing after higher impact factors & citation rates is a rat race, which doesn’t necessarily promote thoughtful science.
