Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19506808›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2009

[Diagnosis and causal treatment of sepsis].

F M Brunkhorst, K Reinhart

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Prevention of periprosthetic joint infections].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2012
    Review
  12. Article
  13. [Urosepsis and treatment].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2010
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

F M BrunkhorstPaul-Martini-Forschergruppe für klinische Sepsisforschung, Klinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Klinikum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Erlanger Allee 101, 07743 , Jena, Deutschland. frank.brunkhorst@med.uni-jena.de
K Reinhart
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The high mortality and morbidity of severe sepsis and septic shock had not been reduced during the two recent decades, despite a number of advances in the field of supportive and adjunctive sepsis therapies. The reason might be that important steps towards overcoming of sepsis - early diagnosis, the surgical resection of the infectious focus and an adequate antibiotic treatment - at present are still suboptimal and have to be improved. However, worldwide growing resistances of pathogens against the common antibiotics are detected. In opposite, no major progress in the development of new antibiotics, mainly for the treatment of Gram-negative non-fermenter infections like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, can be predicted for the next years. Therefore, sepsis treatment must be focused on prevention of infection, and on an optimised application of current antibiotic substances. The key factors are a broad, high dose, and early applicated initial treatment, a de-escalation strategy according to the clinical course supported by the application of novel molecular markers, and - with exceptions - a limitation of treatment to 7 to 10 days. A closer cooperation between microbiologists, infection control specialists and clinical infectious disease consultants may be a key factor to overcome the raising problems in the future.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsHumansSepsisAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID19506808
OpenAlexW1551032547

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.