Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16685555›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2006

[The cost of sepsis].

O Moerer, H Burchardi

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Urosepsis--Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

O MoererZentrum Anaesthesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Georg-August-Universität, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37099, Göttingen. omoerer@gwdg.de
H Burchardi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years great efforts in clinical sepsis research have led to a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and new therapeutic approaches including drugs and supportive care. Despite this success, severe sepsis remains a serious health care problem. Each year approximately 75,000 patients in Germany and approximately 750,000 patients in the USA suffer from severe sepsis. The length of stay and the cost of laborious therapies lead to high intensive care unit (ICU) costs. Sepsis causes a significant national socioeconomic burden if indirect costs due to productivity loss are included and in Germany severe sepsis has been estimated to generate costs between 3.6 and 7.7 billion Euro annually. Thus, this complex and life-threatening disease has been identified as a high cost driver not only for the ICU, but also from the perspectives of hospitals and society. To improve the outcome of severe sepsis, innovative drugs and treatment strategies are urgently needed. Some drugs and strategies already offer promising results and will probably play a major role in the future. Even though their cost-effectiveness is likely, intensive care medicine has to carry a substantial economic burden. This article summarizes studies focusing on the evaluation of direct or indirect costs of sepsis and the cost-effectiveness of new therapies.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisCritical CareEuropeHumansLong-Term CareSepsisUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.