Did they just prove that a diagnosis of "septic shock" is meaningless?

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).JAMA · 2016
   Pooled it
2. In-hospital mortality associated with the misdiagnosis or unidentified site of infection at admission.Critical care (London, England) · 2019
   Article
3. Variations in infection sites and mortality rates among patients in intensive care units with severe sepsis and septic shock in Japan.Journal of intensive care · 2019
   Article
4. Judging quality of current septic shock definitions and criteria.Critical care (London, England) · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Association between source of infection and hospital mortality in patients who have septic shock.2014

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as