Trial reportTrials2014
Sepsis survivors monitoring and coordination in outpatient health care (SMOOTH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- General practitioners' views and experiences in caring for patients after sepsis: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Measuring health-related quality of life in sepsis survivors and caregivers: a mapping review and a preliminary conceptual framework.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Sepsis subphenotypes: bridging the gaps in sepsis treatment strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Trajectories of post-traumatic stress in sepsis survivors two years after ICU discharge: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Care pathways of sepsis survivors: sequelae, mortality and use of healthcare services in France, 2015-2018.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Sepsis Survivors in Germany-Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Trajectories of depression in sepsis survivors: an observational cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Observational
- Implications for post critical illness trial design: sub-phenotyping trajectories of functional recovery among sepsis survivors.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Long-term mortality and outcome in hospital survivors of septic shock, sepsis, and severe infections: The importance of aftercare.PloS one · 2020Article
- Ambulatory and stationary healthcare use in survivors of ARDS during the first year after discharge from ICU: findings from the DACAPO cohort.Annals of intensive care · 2019Article
- From self-awareness to self-actualization: empowering sepsis survivors to a meaningful and enduring recovery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- Year in review 2013: Critical Care--sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Review
- Enhanced Screening and Research Data Collection via Automated EHR Data Capture and Early Identification of Sepsis.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis sequelae include critical illness polyneuropathy, myopathy, wasting, neurocognitive deficits, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and chronic pain. Little is known howlong-term sequelae following hospital discharge are treated. The aim of our study is to determine the effect of a primary care-based, long-term program on health-related quality of life in sepsis survivors. METHODS/
designIn a two-armed randomized multicenter interventional study, patients after sepsis (n = 290) will be assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months. Patients are eligible if severe sepsis or septic shock (ICD-10), at least two criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), at least one organ dysfunction and sufficient cognitive capacity are present. The intervention comprises 1) discharge management, 2) training of general practitioners and patients in evidence-based care for sepsis sequelae and 3) telephone monitoring of patients. At six months, we expect an improved primary outcome (health-related quality of life/SF-36) and improved secondary outcomes such as costs, mortality, clinical-, psycho-social- and process-of-care measures in the intervention group compared to the control group. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates a primary care-based, long-term program for patients after severe sepsis. Study results may add evidence for improved sepsis care management. General practitioners may contribute efficiently to sepsis aftercare.
trial registrationU1111-1119-6345. DRKS00000741, CCT-NAPN-20875 (25 February 2011).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.