About
About Practice Delta
Summaries of recently published trials in emergency and internal medicine, with a look at whether each one is likely to change practice.
Each post covers a single paper. It describes what the trial tested and found, which patients the result applies to, and the main limitations. Some posts conclude that a widely discussed trial isn't enough to change practice.
Posts follow the same layout. A short before-and-after summary comes first, followed by the main result redrawn as a figure and a bedside card with the doses or thresholds the trial used. A table at the end lists where each number comes from in the paper.
Drafts are prepared with AI tools from the published paper. A medical trainee reviews and edits each post and checks its numbers against the source before it's published. Posts are based on peer-reviewed papers and official guidelines, not conference abstracts or preprints.
Each post ends with one of four verdicts
Good-quality evidence with a clear result in a defined group of patients. Reasonable to adopt, alongside local protocols.
The result looks sound but applies only to patients similar to those the trial enrolled.
An encouraging result that hasn't yet been replicated or reflected in guidelines.
The evidence doesn't support changing current practice.
How to read the red pen
Current practice that the evidence may replace.
The change the evidence supports.
The key result, or the verdict.
The main word in the headline.
Red marks a change in practice. It isn't used for warnings or harms.
Before you apply anything here
Practice Delta is for clinician education and isn't medical advice. Summaries simplify the papers and can contain mistakes. Doses and thresholds reflect the trial protocol, which may differ from your institution's guidelines.
To report an error, email [email protected]. Corrections are noted on the post.