A restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.

No abstract

For patients with atrial fibrillation who had participated in a major clinical trial, the use of an AB decision aid improved their understanding of the benefits and risks associated with different treatment options and helped them make definitive choices about which therapy to take. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the acceptability and impact of decision aids in other clinical settings.

A restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy generally appears to be safe in most critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarcts and unstable angina.

Outpatient treatment with oral prednisone offers a small advantage over placebo in treating patients who are discharged from the emergency department with an exacerbation of COPD.

We were unable to detect significant improvements in mortality with a liberal as compared to restrictive transfusion strategy in critically ill trauma victims with moderate to severe head injury.

No abstract

In the randomized, placebo-controlled, physician-blinded Canadian cooperative trial of cyclophosphamide and plasma exchange, neither active treatment regimens (group I: i.v. cyclophosphamide and prednisone; group II: weekly plasma exchange, oral cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) were superior to placebo (group III: sham plasma exchange and placebo medications) using the blinded, evaluating neurologists' assessments of disease course (primary analysis). All patients were examined by both a blinded and an unblinded neurologist at each assessment in this trial. We compared the blinded and unblinded neurologists' judgment of treatment response and analyzed the clinical behavior of patients who correctly guessed their treatment. The unblinded (but not the blinded) neurologists' scores demonstrated an apparent treatment benefit at 6, 12, and 24 months for the group II patients (not group I or placebo; p < 0.05, two-tailed). There were no significant differences in the time to treatment failure or in the proportions of patients improved, stable, or worse between the group II and group III patients who correctly guessed their treatment assignments and those who did not. Physician blinding prevented an erroneous conclusion about treatment efficacy (false positive, type 1 error).