ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014
[Early goal directed therapy in severe sepsis].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Functional hemodynamic monitoring].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Review
- [Hemodynamic monitoring of critically ill patients : Bedside integration of data].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016Review
- [Early goal-directed therapy for septic shock : Systematic review and meta-analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgoundThe treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock continues to evolve. Recent studies have enunciated the benefit of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) during the first 6 h after recognition of the condition. With EGDT a reduction in mortality of over 16% was shown over standard care. Thereafter the components of the EGDT were consequently implemented in the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign as well as the German sepsis guidelines. Nevertheless the medical community's enthusiasm for EGDT has remained indecisive. There remains a profound skepticism about treatment targets such as central venous pressure or mean arterial pressure as well as central venous oxygen saturation. Moreover multiple barriers such as critical shortage of nursing staff, problems in obtaining central venous pressure monitoring or lack of agreement with the EGDT resuscitation protocol may lead to non-adherence to EGDT early in the course of sepsis. RECENT STUDY
resultsIn a recent multicenter trial, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. RECOMMENDATION: The Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Resuscitation Bundle and the 6-Hour Septic Shock Bundle represent a distillation of the concepts and recommendations found in the practice guidelines published by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The bundles are designed to allow teams to follow the timing, sequence, and goals of the individual elements of care. Early recognition, early mobilization of resources, and multidisciplinary collaboration are imperative to enhance the prognosis of patients with sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25261188What 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.