Title |
Insights and limits of translational research in critical care medicine
|
---|---|
Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0050-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Frédéric Pène, Hafid Ait-Oufella, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Guillaume Monneret, Tarek Sharshar, Fabienne Tamion, Jean-Paul Mira, on behalf of the Commission de Recherche Translationnelle de la Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF) |
Abstract |
Experimental research has always been the cornerstone of pathophysiological and therapeutic advances in critical care medicine, where clinical observations and basic research mutually fed each other in a so-called translational approach. The objective of this review is to address the different aspects of translational research in the field of critical care medicine. We herein highlighted some demonstrative examples including the animal-to-human approach to study host-pathogen interactions, the human-to-animal approach for sepsis-induced immunosuppression, the still restrictive human approach to study critical illness-related neuromyopathy, and the technological developments to assess the microcirculatory changes in critically ill patients. These examples not only emphasize how translational research resulted in major improvements in the comprehension of the pathophysiology of severe clinical conditions and offered promising perspectives in critical care medicine but also point out the obstacles to translate such achievements into clinical practice. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Denmark | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
Other | 6 | 26% |
Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 39% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 9% |
Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 8 | 35% |