ReviewDer Anaesthesist2006
[Sepsis. Update on pathophysiology, diagnostics and therapy].
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sepsis recognition in the emergency department - impact on quality of care and outcome?BMC emergency medicine · 2017Article
- The Glyoxalase System and Methylglyoxal-Derived Carbonyl Stress in Sepsis: Glycotoxic Aspects of Sepsis Pathophysiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- [Neutropenia and sepsis].Der Internist · 2013Article
- Hyperresponsiveness of mice deficient in plasma-secreted sphingomyelinase reveals its pivotal role in early phase of host response.Journal of lipid research · 2013Article
- [Therapy of mediastinitis in patients with esophageal cancer].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis results from the host response to infection. While a localized and controlled inflammatory reaction helps to control infection, a dysregulated response may lead to multiple organ failure and determines the course and prognosis of the septic patient. Despite intensive care, mortality remains as high as 54% for severe sepsis and septic shock. As the mechanisms are becoming better defined, interventions aiming to interfere with the host response have been undertaken, largely with disappointing results. Thus, many evidence-based recommendations suggest waiving of resource-consuming interventions. Nevertheless, several seminal studies have indicated that early and systematic supportive therapy according to pathophysiological principles, most notably early goal-directed therapy, low-dose hydrocortisone and activated protein C, can disrupt dysfunctional cascades and can favourably influence the course of the disease. In parallel, efforts to better define nationwide epidemiology and treatment habits for severe sepsis by the German competence network "SepNet" indicate that therapy of severe sepsis is generally in poor compliance with guidelines, while the personal perception of physicians in charge would suggest high rates of adherence. Thus, strategies of change management, such as implementation of sepsis bundles are warranted to achieve a better standard of care toward the aim of the "surviving sepsis campaign", i.e. a reduction of mortality by 25% within the next 5 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.