Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25344412›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014

[First-line anti-infective treatment in sepsis].

H Burgmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 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. Hotspot Analysis of Sepsis Literature.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018
    Article
  2. 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

1 author.

H BurgmannInnere Medizin I, Klinische Abteilung für Infektionen und Tropenmedizin, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich, heinz.burgmann@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommends that intravenous antibiotic therapy should be started as early as possible, ideally within the first hour of recognition of severe sepsis or septic shock. There is ample evidence that failure to initiate early antimicrobial treatment correlates with increased morbidity and mortality.

objectivesThe purpose of this work was to review the recent literature regarding optimal initial antimicrobial treatment in patients with severe sepsis and sepsis shock. MATERIALS AND

methodsA literature review was performed.

resultsThe most frequently quoted papers claiming the overriding prognostic importance of early administered antibiotics are retrospective data analyses. However, an equivalent number of studies report that a group of septic patients do not benefit from early administration of antibiotics, but can also be harmed. In these patients, watchful waiting with administration of a targeted antibiotic can be used, thus, avoiding the possible collateral damage from excessive treatment with antibiotics. Treatment with monotherapy is adequate in most cases.

conclusionThe administration of antibiotics based on the local epidemiology should be initiated quickly in critically ill patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. In patients who are not in septic shock, treatment can be withheld, while awaiting further studies or clinical assessment to confirm the suspicion of infection.

Indexed as

Critical CareEarly Intervention, EducationalAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialDrug TherapyEvidence-Based MedicineGuideline AdherenceHospital MortalityHumansInfusions, IntravenousSepsisShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial Agents

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.