Is the current management of severe sepsis and septic shock really evidence based?

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.

1. Transformation and Evaluation of the MIMIC Database in the OMOP Common Data Model: Development and Usability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021
   Article
2. "Big data" in the intensive care unit. Closing the data loop.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2013
   Article
3. Interrogating a clinical database to study treatment of hypotension in the critically ill.BMJ open · 2012
   Article
4. Is the septic response good or bad?Current infectious disease reports · 2007
   Article
5. How evidence-based are the recommendations in evidence-based guidelines?PLoS medicine · 2007
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as