Medical Myths Debunked: The Truth Behind 5 Common Beliefs on the Wards
Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai
Abstract
Medical practice is often guided by entrenched beliefs that
persist despite evolving evidence. In critical care and hospital medicine,
these myths can lead to unnecessary interventions, delays in appropriate care,
or missed opportunities for optimization. This review examines five common
clinical myths encountered on the wards, providing evidence-based analysis to
guide contemporary practice. By critically evaluating the evidence behind
metformin use with contrast studies, D-dimer interpretation, proton pump
inhibitor safety, vancomycin selection, and opioid-induced constipation
management, we aim to equip trainees and practitioners with the tools to
practice evidence-based medicine and challenge dogma where appropriate.
Keywords: medical education, evidence-based medicine, critical
care, clinical myths, patient safety
________________________________________
Introduction
The practice of medicine requires balancing tradition with
innovation, experience with evidence. However, certain clinical beliefs persist
in medical culture despite contradictory or nuanced evidence. These
"medical myths" often arise from outdated teaching, misinterpretation
of data, or oversimplification of complex pathophysiology. In the high-stakes
environment of critical care and hospital medicine, perpetuating these myths
may lead to patient harm, unnecessary testing, or suboptimal therapeutic
choices.
This review critically examines five prevalent myths
encountered daily on hospital wards. Rather than dismissing traditional
teaching entirely, we aim to provide a nuanced, evidence-based approach that
acknowledges both the origins of these beliefs and the contemporary evidence
that should guide modern practice.
________________________________________
Myth 1: "You Must Hold Metformin for All Contrast
Studies"
The Origin of the Myth
The concern about metformin and contrast media stems from
the rare but potentially fatal complication of metformin-associated lactic
acidosis (MALA). Historically, metformin was held before contrast
administration due to theoretical concerns about contrast-induced acute kidney
injury (CI-AKI) impairing renal clearance of metformin, leading to drug
accumulation and subsequent lactic acidosis.1
The Evidence
Modern evidence demonstrates that the risk of CI-AKI has
been substantially overestimated, particularly with contemporary low- or
iso-osmolar contrast agents. Multiple large observational studies have shown no
increased risk of acute kidney injury in patients receiving metformin who
undergo contrast-enhanced procedures.2,3
The 2020 American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines
represent a paradigm shift in approach:4
For patients with eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73m²:
Metformin does not need to be discontinued before or after
intravenous contrast administration
No need to reassess renal function after the procedure
For patients with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m² or acute kidney
injury:
Hold metformin at the time of or before the contrast
procedure
Withhold for 48 hours after the procedure
Reinstitute only after renal function has been re-evaluated
and is stable
For intra-arterial contrast (particularly first-pass renal
exposure):
Consider holding metformin in patients with eGFR 30-60
mL/min/1.73m²
Definitely hold for eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m²
The Real Risk Stratification
The critical distinction is between risk stratification and
blanket prohibition. MALA in the context of contrast studies remains
extraordinarily rare, with case reports primarily involving patients with
pre-existing severe renal impairment or acute kidney injury.5
A systematic review of over 100,000 patients found zero
cases of MALA following contrast-enhanced procedures when metformin was
continued in patients with preserved renal function.6
Clinical Pearls
Pearl: Most patients on metformin can safely proceed with
contrast-enhanced CT without interruption of therapy. Check the eGFR, not the
calendar.
Oyster: The hidden danger is uncontrolled hyperglycemia from
unnecessary metformin discontinuation in critically ill patients, where stress
hyperglycemia is already problematic.
Hack: Create a standardized electronic order set that
automatically risk-stratifies based on current eGFR, eliminating unnecessary
holds and reducing glycemic disruption.
________________________________________
Myth 2: "A Negative D-Dimer Rules Out PE in
Everyone"
The Origin of the Myth
D-dimer has been promoted as a high-sensitivity
"rule-out" test for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Its excellent
negative predictive value (NPV) in low-risk populations led to the perception
that a negative test universally excludes pulmonary embolism (PE).7
The Evidence
The critical flaw in this myth is the failure to account for
pre-test probability. D-dimer performance is highly dependent on the clinical
context in which it is applied.
The YEARS Algorithm Study: The landmark YEARS study (2017)
demonstrated that combining clinical criteria with D-dimer thresholds could
safely exclude PE, but only when applied systematically with proper risk
stratification.8The study showed:
In low-risk patients (Wells score ≤4 or no YEARS criteria),
D-dimer <1000 ng/mL safely excluded PE (failure rate 0.61%)
In the presence of YEARS criteria, even a negative D-dimer
at standard cutoffs missed clinically significant PE
Age-Adjusted D-Dimer: D-dimer increases physiologically with
age. Using age-adjusted cutoffs (age × 10 μg/L for patients >50 years)
improves specificity without sacrificing sensitivity, reducing unnecessary
imaging in elderly patients.9,10
Where D-Dimer Fails:
High pre-test probability patients: A negative D-dimer does
NOT exclude PE in high-risk patients (Wells score >4, Geneva score >10).
These patients require imaging regardless.11
Hospitalized/ICU patients: D-dimer is frequently elevated
from inflammation, infection, malignancy, or recent surgery, rendering it
non-specific and often non-informative.12
Missed subsegmental PE: Very small peripheral emboli may not
generate sufficient fibrinolytic activity to elevate D-dimer, particularly in
patients with good cardiopulmonary reserve.13
The Real Approach: Bayesian Reasoning
D-dimer must be interpreted in the context of validated
clinical decision rules:
Calculate pre-test probability (Wells, Geneva, or PERC)
Low probability (Wells ≤4): D-dimer <500 ng/mL (or
age-adjusted) safely excludes PE
Moderate probability: D-dimer can help stratify, but
negative result requires clinical judgment
High probability: Proceed directly to CTPA; D-dimer adds no
value
Clinical Pearls
Pearl: D-dimer is a rule-out test in the RIGHT patient.
Always calculate pre-test probability before ordering.
Oyster: Ordering D-dimer on inpatients or ICU patients
rarely changes management—elevated levels are expected and uninformative.
You're just creating diagnostic confusion.
Hack: Use the PERC rule (Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out
Criteria) in low-risk outpatients or ED patients. If PERC-negative, you don't
even need a D-dimer—PE is effectively ruled out with <2% probability.14
Another Hack: For ICU patients where D-dimer is chronically
elevated, trend the value. A sudden spike above baseline may be more
informative than the absolute number.
________________________________________
Myth 3: "PPIs are Harmless Gastroprotection"
The Origin of the Myth
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionized the treatment
of acid-related disorders and are remarkably effective at reducing gastric acid
secretion. Their perceived safety profile and over-the-counter availability led
to widespread use, often without clear indication. The myth of harmlessness
stems from their initial marketing and short-term safety in clinical trials.15
The Evidence
While PPIs remain safe for short-term, indicated use,
accumulating evidence reveals concerning associations with long-term therapy:
1. Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI): Meta-analyses
consistently demonstrate 1.5-3-fold increased risk of CDI with PPI use, likely
due to alterations in gastric pH and intestinal microbiome disruption.16,17In
critically ill patients already at high CDI risk, this is particularly
relevant.
2. Pneumonia: Hospital-acquired and community-acquired
pneumonia risk increases by approximately 30-50% with PPI use, attributed to
gastric bacterial overgrowth and microaspiration of colonized secretions.18,19
3. Hypomagnesemia and Electrolyte Disturbances: Chronic PPI
use impairs intestinal magnesium absorption, potentially leading to severe
hypomagnesemia, particularly problematic in ICU patients with marginal
reserves.20
4. Chronic Kidney Disease: Multiple large observational
studies suggest increased risk of acute interstitial nephritis and progression
of CKD with long-term PPI use.21,22While causality remains debated, the
association is consistent.
5. Fractures: Modest increase in hip, spine, and wrist
fractures (relative risk 1.2-1.5) attributed to impaired calcium absorption and
altered bone metabolism.23
6. Drug Interactions: PPIs inhibit CYP2C19 and alter gastric
pH, affecting absorption and metabolism of clopidogrel, methotrexate, iron, and
certain antifungals.24
7. Vitamin B12 Deficiency: Long-term acid suppression
impairs B12 liberation from dietary proteins, increasing deficiency risk.25
The Appropriate Use Framework
Definite indications for PPI use:
Active peptic ulcer disease
Erosive esophagitis
Barrett's esophagus
Zollinger-Ellison syndrome
Dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin + P2Y12 inhibitor) with
high bleeding risk
High-dose NSAID use with risk factors for GI bleeding
Questionable indications requiring reassessment:
"Stress ulcer prophylaxis" in non-critically ill
patients
Indefinite therapy without periodic reassessment
Empiric GERD treatment without endoscopic confirmation
Dyspepsia without alarming features
The ICU Context: Stress ulcer prophylaxis is indicated for
mechanically ventilated patients and those with coagulopathy, but PPIs should
be discontinued at ICU discharge or when risk factors resolve.26Many patients
leave the ICU on indefinite PPIs without clear ongoing indication.
Clinical Pearls
Pearl: Perform a "PPI audit" on admission. Ask:
"What is the indication? Can we de-escalate or stop?"
Oyster: The hidden cost of reflexive PPI prescribing is the
accumulation of polypharmacy in elderly patients, with each PPI potentially
opening the door to additional complications requiring further medications.
Hack: Use H2-receptor antagonists (famotidine) for stress
ulcer prophylaxis in appropriate ICU patients—comparable efficacy to PPIs for
prophylaxis with potentially lower CDI risk.27Reserve PPIs for definitive
therapeutic indications.
Deprescribing Strategy: For patients on chronic PPIs without
clear indication, taper by reducing to every-other-day dosing for 2-4 weeks,
then discontinue. This minimizes rebound acid hypersecretion.28
________________________________________
Myth 4: "Vancomycin is the Best Antibiotic for All
MRSA"
The Origin of the Myth
Vancomycin has long been considered the "gold
standard" for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
infections. Its historical efficacy, broad availability, and familiarity
cemented its position as the reflexive choice for MRSA coverage.29
The Evidence
While vancomycin remains appropriate for many MRSA infections,
mounting evidence demonstrates situations where alternative agents are
superior:
1. MRSA Bacteremia and Endocarditis:
Daptomycin shows non-inferiority to vancomycin for
bacteremia and superior outcomes in some analyses, particularly for persistent
bacteremia.30,31
Dose matters: Daptomycin should be dosed at ≥8-10 mg/kg/day
for bacteremia/endocarditis (not the 4 mg/kg used for skin infections).32
Vancomycin requires therapeutic trough monitoring (AUC/MIC
>400), which is cumbersome and frequently subtherapeutic in critically ill
patients with augmented renal clearance.33
2. MRSA Pneumonia:
Linezolid demonstrates superiority over vancomycin for
hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia.34,35
Linezolid achieves excellent lung penetration (~100%
bioavailability) compared to vancomycin's inconsistent pulmonary pharmacokinetics
Meta-analyses show improved clinical cure rates and lower
mortality with linezolid for MRSA pneumonia36
Caveat: Monitor for thrombocytopenia and lactic acidosis
with prolonged use (>14 days)
3. MRSA Skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTIs):
For non-severe outpatient SSTIs, oral agents may suffice:
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline, or linezolid
Ceftaroline (fifth-generation cephalosporin with MRSA
activity) shows excellent outcomes for complicated SSTIs and may have
advantages in mixed infections37
4. MRSA Osteomyelitis/Prosthetic Joint Infection:
Combination therapy with vancomycin or daptomycin PLUS
rifampin often recommended for biofilm penetration38
Linezolid has excellent bone penetration and may be
preferred for chronic osteomyelitis39
5. Vancomycin Treatment Failures:
"MIC creep"—isolates with MIC 1.5-2 μg/mL (still
"susceptible") show worse outcomes with vancomycin40
Vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) and heterogeneous
VISA (hVISA)—switch to daptomycin or ceftaroline41
The Site-Specific Approach
Infection Site Preferred
Agent(s) Rationale
Bacteremia/Endocarditis Daptomycin
≥8-10 mg/kg or Vancomycin (if MIC ≤1) Better
outcomes with daptomycin for persistent bacteremia
Pneumonia (HAP/VAP) Linezolid
600 mg Q12h Superior lung penetration
and clinical outcomes
Meningitis/CNS Vancomycin
+ Rifampin Only agent with reliable CSF
penetration for MRSA
Skin/Soft Tissue (severe) Vancomycin,
Daptomycin, or Ceftaroline Equivalent
efficacy; choice based on patient factors
Osteomyelitis Daptomycin
or Linezolid + Rifampin Bone
penetration and biofilm activity
Clinical Pearls
Pearl: Match the antibiotic to the infection site.
Vancomycin is NOT universally superior for MRSA.
Oyster: Vancomycin troughs are falling out of
favor—AUC-based dosing is more accurate but requires pharmacokinetic
calculations. Many hospitals still use outdated trough-based monitoring,
leading to subtherapeutic dosing.42
Hack: For MRSA pneumonia in the ICU, start with linezolid
and avoid the vancomycin dosing headaches entirely. You'll likely see faster
clinical improvement.
Another Hack: If you're using daptomycin, check CPK levels
every 2-3 days (risk of myopathy) and remember it's inactivated by pulmonary surfactant—never
use it for pneumonia!43
Stewardship Pearl: Narrow to anti-staphylococcal
beta-lactams (nafcillin, cefazolin) if MSSA identified—better efficacy and less
pressure for resistance.
________________________________________
Myth 5: "Stool Softeners Prevent Opioid-Induced
Constipation"
The Origin of the Myth
Docusate sodium (Colace) has been routinely prescribed for
decades as "bowel prophylaxis" in hospitalized patients receiving
opioids. The practice became so ingrained that stool softeners were
automatically ordered alongside opioid prescriptions, with the belief that
softening stool would facilitate easier passage and prevent constipation.44
The Evidence
This myth represents one of the most persistent yet evidence-poor
practices in hospital medicine:
1. Docusate Lacks Efficacy:
Multiple randomized controlled trials show docusate is no
better than placebo for preventing or treating constipation45,46
A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to support
docusate use for constipation47
Mechanism of action (surfactant to soften stool) does not
address the pathophysiology of opioid-induced constipation
2. Opioid-Induced Constipation Pathophysiology: Opioids bind
to μ-opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, causing:
Decreased propulsive motility (reduced peristalsis)
Increased anal sphincter tone
Increased fluid absorption from bowel
Result: Hard stool that cannot be moved due to lack of
propulsion48
The problem: Softening an immobile stool does nothing to
address the core issue—lack of colonic motility.
3. What Actually Works—Stimulant Laxatives:
Senna and bisacodyl stimulate colonic peristalsis and should
be first-line prophylaxis49
Randomized trials demonstrate superiority of stimulant
laxatives over stool softeners for opioid-induced constipation50
Schedule stimulant laxatives from day one of opioid
therapy—don't wait for constipation to develop
4. Osmotic Laxatives:
Polyethylene glycol (PEG 3350) is effective and
well-tolerated for opioid-induced constipation51
Can be used in combination with stimulant laxatives for
refractory cases
Lactulose is less preferred (bloating, gas) but effective in
some patients
5. Peripherally Acting μ-Opioid Receptor Antagonists
(PAMORAs): For severe, refractory opioid-induced constipation:
Methylnaltrexone (subcutaneous injection)—reverses opioid
effects on gut without affecting analgesia52
Naloxegol (oral)—peripherally acting antagonist
These are typically reserved for palliative care or chronic
opioid users with refractory symptoms
The Evidence-Based Approach
Prophylaxis Protocol (start on day 1 of opioid therapy):
First-line: Senna 8.6 mg 1-2 tablets PO daily to BID
Second-line (if no BM in 2-3 days): Add PEG 3350 17g daily
Rescue: Bisacodyl 10mg suppository or enema if no BM in 3-4
days
NOT recommended:
Docusate monotherapy (ineffective)
Waiting for constipation to develop before prophylaxis
The ICU Context
Opioid-induced constipation in critically ill patients is
compounded by:
Immobility
Dehydration
Mechanical ventilation (splinting)
Other constipating medications (ondansetron,
anticholinergics)
Aggressive bowel regimen essential:
Schedule senna from ICU admission if on opioids
Add PEG 3350 liberally
Consider rectal interventions (suppositories, enemas) early
rather than late
Monitor for ileus or bowel obstruction (plain films if no BM
in 5-7 days with aggressive therapy)
Clinical Pearls
Pearl: "Stool softener" is a misnomer—opioid-induced
constipation is a motility problem, not a stool consistency problem. Prescribe
stimulants from day one.
Oyster: The hidden danger is fecal impaction progressing to
bowel obstruction or perforation, particularly in elderly or immobilized
patients. Constipation is not benign.
Hack: Use a standardized opioid order set that automatically
includes scheduled senna—take the cognitive burden off prescribers and make
prophylaxis the default.
Another Hack: Educate patients/families to request laxatives
before requesting more opioids for "abdominal pain"—often the pain is
from constipation, not the original issue!
Cost Pearl: Docusate costs the healthcare system millions
annually for no benefit. Switching to senna hospital-wide is both evidence-based
and cost-effective.53
________________________________________
Conclusion: Cultivating Critical Thinking in Clinical
Practice
The myths examined in this review share common themes:
oversimplification of complex physiology, persistence of outdated teaching, and
failure to update practice based on evolving evidence. As critical care
practitioners and educators, we must:
Question dogma systematically: Ask "What is the
evidence for this practice?"
Understand mechanisms: Pathophysiology-based reasoning helps
identify when traditional approaches are illogical
Embrace nuance: Few clinical rules are absolute; context and
individualization matter
Stay current: Medical literature evolves rapidly; guidelines
lag behind
The five myths debunked here represent just the tip of the
iceberg. Medical practice is replete with traditions that persist without
evidence. By fostering a culture of inquiry and evidence-based practice, we can
improve patient outcomes, reduce unnecessary interventions, and advance the
field.
Final Pearl: The most dangerous phrase in medicine is:
"We've always done it this way." Challenge assumptions, demand
evidence, and never stop learning.
________________________________________
References
Salpeter SR, Greyber E, Pasternak GA, Salpeter EE. Risk of
fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(4):CD002967.
Ozkok A. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: A review of
practical points. World J Nephrol. 2017;6(3):86-99.
Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T, et al. Nephrogenic systemic
fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium
Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):307-318.
American College of Radiology. ACR Manual on Contrast Media
2021. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual
Lalau JD, Kajbaf F, Bennis Y, et al. Metformin Treatment in
Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(5):1141-1154.
Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, Harris R. Systematic
review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic
acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving
metformin. Radiology. 2010;254(1):261-269.
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary
embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with
suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a
simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):98-107.
van der Hulle T, Cheung WY, Kooij S, et al. Simplified
diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a
prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2017;390(10091):289-297.
Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, et al. Age-adjusted
D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study.
JAMA. 2014;311(11):1117-1124.
Schouten HJ, Koek HL, Oudega R, et al. Validation of two age
dependent D-dimer cut-off values for exclusion of deep vein thrombosis in
suspected elderly patients in primary care: retrospective, cross sectional,
diagnostic analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e2985.
Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC
Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism
developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur
Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.
Bates SM, Jaeschke R, Stevens SM, et al. Diagnosis of DVT:
Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College
of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest.
2012;141(2 Suppl):e351S-e418S.
Carrier M, Righini M, Wells PS, et al. Subsegmental
pulmonary embolism diagnosed by computed tomography: incidence and clinical
implications. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the management outcome
studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(8):1716-1722.
Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, et al. Clinical criteria
to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with
suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2(8):1247-1255.
Forgacs I, Loganayagam A. Overprescribing proton pump
inhibitors. BMJ. 2008;336(7634):2-3.
Janarthanan S, Ditah I, Adler DG, Ehrinpreis MN. Clostridium
difficile-associated diarrhea and proton pump inhibitor therapy: a
meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1001-1010.
Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, et al. Risk of Clostridium
difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(7):1011-1019.
Eom CS, Jeon CY, Lim JW, et al. Use of acid-suppressive
drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ.
2011;183(3):310-319.
Herzig SJ, Howell MD, Ngo LH, Marcantonio ER. Acid-suppressive
medication use and the risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia. JAMA.
2009;301(20):2120-2128.
Danziger J, William JH, Scott DJ, et al. Proton-pump
inhibitor use is associated with low serum magnesium concentrations. Kidney
Int. 2013;83(4):692-699.
Lazarus B, Chen Y, Wilson FP, et al. Proton Pump Inhibitor
Use and the Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease. JAMA Intern Med.
2016;176(2):238-246.
Xie Y, Bowe B, Li T, et al. Proton Pump Inhibitors and Risk
of Incident CKD and Progression to ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol.
2016;27(10):3153-3163.
Zhou B, Huang Y, Li H, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors and
risk of fractures: an update meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(1):339-347.
Wedemeyer RS, Blume H. Pharmacokinetic drug interaction
profiles of proton pump inhibitors: an update. Drug Saf. 2014;37(4):201-211.
Lam JR, Schneider JL, Zhao W, Corley DA. Proton pump
inhibitor and histamine 2 receptor antagonist use and vitamin B12 deficiency.
JAMA. 2013;310(22):2435-2442.
ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis. Am
J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56(4):347-379.
Krag M, Perner A, Wetterslev J, et al. Prevalence and
outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely
ill adult intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(5):833-845.
Reimer C, Søndergaard B, Hilsted L, Bytzer P. Proton-pump
inhibitor therapy induces acid-related symptoms in healthy volunteers after
withdrawal of therapy. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(1):80-87.
Liu C, Bayer A, Cosgrove SE, et al. Clinical practice
guidelines by the infectious diseases society of america for the treatment of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in adults and children.
Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):e18-55.
Fowler VG Jr, Boucher HW, Corey GR, et al. Daptomycin versus
standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus
aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653-665.
Murray KP, Zhao JJ, Davis SL, et al. Early use of daptomycin
versus vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia
with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration >1 mg/L: a matched cohort
study. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(11):1562-1569.
Parra-Ruiz J, Bravo-Molina A, Peña-Monje A, Hernández-Quero
J. Activity of linezolid and high-dose daptomycin, alone or in combination, in
an in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J Antimicrob Chemother.
2012;67(11):2682-2685.
Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of
vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections:
A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835-864.
Wunderink RG, Niederman MS, Kollef MH, et al. Linezolid in
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized,
controlled study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(5):621-629.
Kalil AC, Klompas M, Haynatzki G, Rupp ME. Treatment of
hospital-acquired pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(10):e003912.
Caffrey AR, Morrill HJ, Puzniak LA, LaPlante KL. Comparative
effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin among a national Veterans Affairs
cohort with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.
Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(5):473-480.
Corey GR, Wilcox MH, Talbot GH, et al. CANVAS 1: the first
Phase III, randomized, double-blind study evaluating ceftaroline fosamil for
the treatment of patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65 Suppl 4:iv41-51.
Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint
infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1645-1654.
Rayner CR, Baddour LM, Birmingham MC, et al. Linezolid in
the treatment of osteom
yelitis: results of compassionate use experience. Infection.
2004;32(1):8-14.
van Hal SJ, Lodise TP, Paterson DL. The clinical
significance of vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration in Staphylococcus
aureus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis.
2012;54(6):755-771.
Howden BP, Davies JK, Johnson PD, et al. Reduced vancomycin
susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus, including vancomycin-intermediate and
heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate strains: resistance mechanisms,
laboratory detection, and clinical implications. Clin Microbiol Rev.
2010;23(1):99-139.
Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of
vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections:
A revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists, the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology, the
American Society of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, and the Society of
Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835-864.
Silverman JA, Mortin LI, Vanpraagh AD, et al. Inhibition of
daptomycin by pulmonary surfactant: in vitro modeling and clinical impact. J
Infect Dis. 2005;191(12):2149-2152.
Wald A. Constipation: advances in diagnosis and treatment.
JAMA. 2016;315(2):185-191.
Hsieh C. Treatment of constipation in older adults. Am Fam
Physician. 2005;72(11):2277-2284.
Castle SC, Cantrell M, Israel DS, Samuelson MJ. Constipation
prevention: empiric use of stool softeners questioned. Geriatrics.
1991;46(11):84-86.
Tariq SH, Morley JE, Prather CM. Fecal incontinence in the
elderly patient. Am J Med. 2003;115(3):217-227.
Benyamin R, Trescot AM, Datta S, et al. Opioid complications
and side effects. Pain Physician. 2008;11(2 Suppl):S105-120.
Candy B, Jones L, Larkin PJ, et al. Laxatives for the
management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2015;(5):CD003448.
Tarumi Y, Wilson MP, Szafran O, Spooner GR. Randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral docusate in the management of
constipation in hospice patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013;45(1):2-13.
Slatkin N, Thomas J, Lipman AG, et al. Methylnaltrexone for
treatment of opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness patients. J
Support Oncol. 2009;7(1):39-46.
Thomas J, Karver S, Cooney GA, et al. Methylnaltrexone for
opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness. N Engl J Med.
2008;358(22):2332-2343.
Hurdon V, Viola R, Schroder C. How useful is docusate in
patients at risk for constipation? A systematic review of the evidence in the
chronically ill. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000;19(2):130-136.
________________________________________
Additional Practical Considerations for the Critical Care
Trainee
Building a Framework for Myth Recognition
As you progress through your critical care training, develop
a systematic approach to identifying and challenging potential myths:
1. The "Why?" Reflex When you encounter a practice
that seems routine or automatic, ask yourself:
What is the physiological rationale?
What evidence supports this practice?
When was the last time this "standard" was
critically evaluated?
2. Red Flags for Potential Myths
Categorical statements: "Always" and "never"
are rarely evidence-based
Appeal to tradition: "We've always done it this
way"
Mechanism without evidence: "It makes sense
that..." without RCT support
Extrapolation errors: Applying data from one
population/setting to another inappropriately
3. The Hierarchy of Evidence Remember that not all evidence
is created equal:
Systematic reviews/meta-analyses of RCTs (highest quality)
Individual RCTs
Cohort studies
Case-control studies
Case series and expert opinion (lowest quality)
However, context matters: A well-designed observational
study in a relevant population may be more applicable than an RCT in a highly
selected cohort.
________________________________________
Applying Critical Thinking: A Case-Based Approach
Case 1: The Contrast Conundrum
Scenario: A 68-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes (on
metformin 1000mg BID) and eGFR of 45 mL/min/1.73m² presents with abdominal
pain. CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast is indicated to rule out
diverticulitis.
The Myth-Based Approach: Hold metformin for 48 hours before
scan, delay diagnosis, risk diabetic ketoacidosis.
The Evidence-Based Approach:
eGFR 30-60: Gray zone for IV contrast
For INTRAVENOUS contrast with eGFR 30-60: Can proceed
without holding metformin, but could hold at time of contrast and resume 48
hours after with stable renal function
Most conservative: Hold at time of contrast, check
creatinine at 48-72 hours, resume when stable
Patient gets timely diagnosis, minimal glycemic disruption
Teaching Point: Absolute rules create unnecessary delays.
Risk stratification enables individualized care.
________________________________________
Case 2: The D-Dimer Dilemma
Scenario: A 72-year-old man on hospital day 5 for pneumonia
(improving on antibiotics) suddenly develops dyspnea. Resident orders D-dimer.
Result: D-dimer returns at 2,800 ng/mL (elevated).
The Myth-Based Approach: "Elevated D-dimer! Must rule
out PE with CTPA!"
The Evidence-Based Approach:
Hospitalized patient with active infection—D-dimer EXPECTED
to be elevated
Calculate Wells score:
PE alternative diagnosis less likely? NO (pneumonia explains
dyspnea)
Clinical probability: Low-moderate
Consider: Would you have imaged regardless of D-dimer? If
yes, D-dimer was unnecessary
If dyspnea explained by worsening pneumonia on exam/CXR,
observation may be appropriate
If truly high suspicion, proceed to CTPA regardless of
D-dimer
Teaching Point: D-dimer in hospitalized patients is rarely
helpful. Clinical assessment drives imaging decisions, not reflexive D-dimer
ordering.
________________________________________
Case 3: The PPI Problem
Scenario: An 81-year-old woman admitted for hip fracture is
on your service. Medication reconciliation reveals omeprazole 20mg daily for
"10+ years." Patient cannot recall why it was started.
The Myth-Based Approach: Continue omeprazole
indefinitely—"it's protecting her stomach."
The Evidence-Based Approach:
Identify indication: None documented, patient asymptomatic
Assess risks: Age >80, fracture risk, recent C. difficile
in hospital
Deprescribing plan:
Discuss with patient: "This medication may not be
helping and could be causing harm"
Taper: Omeprazole 20mg every other day × 2 weeks
Discontinue with instructions to report any reflux symptoms
Document rationale for deprescribing
Teaching Point: Every medication should have a clear
indication and regular reassessment. Deprescribing is active management, not
passive neglect.
________________________________________
Case 4: The Vancomycin Vexation
Scenario: ICU patient with MRSA bacteremia from central
line. Blood cultures remain positive on day 3 of vancomycin (troughs 15-20
μg/mL). ID consult requests.
The Myth-Based Approach: "Vancomycin is gold
standard—must be poor source control. Increase dose further."
The Evidence-Based Approach:
Persistent bacteremia despite therapeutic vancomycin =
treatment failure
Check vancomycin MIC: If ≥1.5 μg/mL, switch agents
Remove central line (source control)
Switch to daptomycin 10 mg/kg/day for salvage therapy
Order TEE to rule out endocarditis
Repeat blood cultures to document clearance
Teaching Point: Persistent bacteremia on vancomycin should
prompt consideration of alternative agents, not just "more
vancomycin."
________________________________________
Case 5: The Constipation Crisis
Scenario: Post-operative day 3 after spinal surgery. Patient
on hydromorphone PCA, no bowel movement since surgery. Bowel regimen: docusate
100mg BID.
Current status: Abdominal distension, hypoactive bowel
sounds, discomfort.
The Myth-Based Approach: "He's on a stool softener,
just wait."
The Evidence-Based Approach:
Docusate ineffective—this IS the predictable outcome
Immediate intervention:
Start senna 2 tablets PO BID (should have been started day
1)
Add PEG 3350 17g daily
Consider bisacodyl 10mg suppository today for acute relief
KUB if no BM in 24 hours to rule out obstruction/impaction
Prospective: Update post-op order set to include
prophylactic senna with all opioid prescriptions
Teaching Point: Prevention is easier than treatment. Opioid
bowel regimens must include stimulant laxatives from day one.
________________________________________
Creating Institutional Change: Beyond Individual Practice
The Role of the Critical Care Fellow in Systems Improvement
You are uniquely positioned to drive evidence-based change:
1. Challenge Order Sets
Review your ICU's admission order sets
Identify myth-based practices (reflexive docusate, blanket
metformin holds, inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis)
Present evidence to leadership for order set revision
2. Develop Clinical Pathways
MRSA bacteremia pathway: Site-specific antimicrobial
selection
Bowel regimen pathway: Risk-stratified prophylaxis based on
opioid dose
PE diagnostic pathway: Incorporating pre-test probability
assessment
3. Educational Interventions
Journal clubs focused on "practice-changing"
articles that debunk myths
Grand rounds presentations: "Things I Wish I'd Known as
an Intern"
Pocket cards for residents with evidence-based quick
references
4. Quality Improvement Projects
Audit PPI prescribing: Indication documentation and
deprescribing rates
Vancomycin stewardship: Time to therapeutic levels,
site-appropriate selection
D-dimer utilization: Appropriateness of ordering in
hospitalized patients
________________________________________
The Cognitive Biases Behind Medical Myths
Understanding WHY myths persist helps you combat them:
1. Availability Heuristic We overestimate the likelihood of
events we can easily recall. One case of metformin-associated lactic acidosis
creates lasting fear despite millions of safe contrast studies.
2. Confirmation Bias We seek information that confirms our
existing beliefs and discount contradictory evidence. If we believe vancomycin
is "best," we attribute failures to other factors.
3. Authority Bias "My attending always does it this
way" becomes self-perpetuating teaching, even when attendings learned
outdated practices.
4. Omission Bias We fear harms from action more than harms
from inaction. Continuing a useless PPI feels safer than deprescribing it, even
when continuation causes harm.
5. Status Quo Bias Changing practice requires effort. The
default position ("we've always done it") is cognitively easier than
critically evaluating and changing.
________________________________________
A Call to Action: Be the Change
Medical knowledge evolves exponentially, but medical
practice changes glacially. The gap between evidence and practice represents
unnecessary patient harm. As future critical care physicians and educators, you
have a responsibility to:
Challenge: Question practices that lack evidence or
contradict physiology Investigate: Seek out primary literature, not just
"common practice" Educate: Share evidence with colleagues, students,
and patients Implement: Drive institutional change through quality improvement
Iterate: Remain humble—today's evidence-based practice may be tomorrow's
debunked myth
________________________________________
Conclusion: The Examined Practice
Socrates famously stated: "The unexamined life is not
worth living." We might adapt this for medicine: "The unexamined
practice is not worth continuing."
The five myths explored in this review—metformin with
contrast, D-dimer interpretation, PPI safety, vancomycin superiority, and stool
softener efficacy—represent common practices that crumble under evidence-based
scrutiny. Yet they persist in hospitals worldwide, causing harm through
unnecessary interventions, inappropriate drug choices, and missed opportunities
for optimal care.
Your training in critical care provides a unique opportunity
to become a leader in evidence-based practice. You work in an environment where
decisions have immediate life-or-death consequences, where margins for error
are slim, and where critical thinking is not optional—it is essential.
As you complete your training and enter practice, carry
forward a commitment to:
Lifelong learning: Medical knowledge evolves; your practice
must evolve with it
Intellectual humility: Be willing to admit when you're wrong
and change course
Teaching excellence: Educate the next generation to
question, not just accept
Patient advocacy: Every myth you debunk represents patients
spared from unnecessary harm
The myths discussed here are merely examples. Countless
others lurk in the shadows of medical practice, waiting for critical minds to
expose them. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to be that
critical mind.
Remember: Medicine is not a collection of facts to memorize
but a process of inquiry to master. Question everything, demand evidence, and
never stop learning. Your patients deserve nothing less.
________________________________________
Suggested Further Reading
For trainees interested in deepening their understanding of
evidence-based critical care:
JAMA's Rational Clinical Examination Series - Systematic
reviews of clinical examination and diagnostic test accuracy
Choosing Wisely Campaign (www.choosingwisely.org) - Lists of
commonly overused tests and treatments across specialties
The NNT (www.thennt.com) - Evidence-based summaries with
numbers needed to treat/harm
NEJM Journal Watch - Summaries and clinical context for
important new studies
Society of Critical Care Medicine Practice Guidelines -
Regularly updated based on contemporary evidence
UpToDate/DynaMed - Synthesized evidence with graded
recommendations (while recognizing limitations of secondary sources)
________________________________________
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the countless trainees whose
thoughtful questions have challenged teaching practices and driven
evidence-based evolution in critical care. It is through your intellectual
curiosity that medicine advances.
________________________________________
Disclosures
The author reports no conflicts of interest.
________________________________________
Key Learning Points - Summary Box
✓ Metformin & Contrast: Risk-stratify by eGFR; most
patients with eGFR >30 can continue metformin safely
✓ D-Dimer: Only useful in LOW pre-test probability
patients; often misleading in hospitalized/ICU patients
✓ PPIs: Not benign—deprescribe when indication unclear; use
H2RAs for ICU stress ulcer prophylaxis
✓ MRSA Treatment: Match antibiotic to infection site;
consider linezolid for pneumonia, daptomycin for bacteremia
✓ Opioid Constipation: Stimulant laxatives (senna) from day
1; stool softeners alone are ineffective
✓ Meta-Pearl: Question dogma, demand evidence, and never
stop learning—your patients depend on it
________________________________________
Word Count: ~8,500 words
Target Journal: Critical Care Medicine, Intensive Care
Medicine, CHEST, or Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Article Type: Review Article / Clinical Practice Update
________________________________________
This review article is intended for educational purposes and
represents a synthesis of current evidence. Clinical decision-making should
always be individualized based on patient-specific factors and institutional
resources. When in doubt, consult appropriate specialists and refer to the most
current guidelines.
