Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18351304›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2008

[Molecular biological detection of pathogens in patients with sepsis. Potentials, limitations and perspectives].

K-P Hunfeld, T Bingold, V Brade, H Wissing

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Procare : das forbildungsmagazin fur pflegeberufe · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

K-P HunfeldInstitut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Krankenhaushygiene, Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 40, 60596, Frankfurt/Main. K.Hunfeld@em.uni-frankfurt.de
T Bingold
V Brade
H Wissing

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BacteremiaBloodHumansMolecular BiologyReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSepsisShock, Septic

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.