ReviewDer Anaesthesist2008
[Molecular biological detection of pathogens in patients with sepsis. Potentials, limitations and perspectives].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The wide variability of clinical symptoms and the ongoing difficulties concerning the rapid and specific laboratory diagnosis of sepsis, contribute to the fact that sepsis primarily remains a clinical diagnosis. To contribute to a more tailored antibiotic coverage of the patient early on in the course of the disease, modern diagnostic concepts favour the qualitative and quantitative molecular biological detection of blood stream pathogens directly from whole blood. This offers a very attractive alternative to the currently applied less sensitive and much more time-consuming blood culture-based laboratory methods. Moreover, recent study results suggest an increasing impact of molecular detection methods with short turn-around times for more effective treatment and better outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. In the short term, such tests will not substitute conventional blood culture despite their superior rapidity and sensitivity, mainly because of higher cost. The amazing speed of ongoing scientific developments means, however, that techniques that might appear complicated, labour intensive, and costly today, will develop to become the future standards in the microbiological diagnosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18351304What 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.