Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25675360›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2014

Don't miss the diagnosis of sepsis!

Paul E Marik

Open access · goldAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Classifying sepsis from photoplethysmography.Health information science and systems · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The complete blood count to diagnose septic shock.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul E Marik
Eastern Virginia Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The early detection and treatment of sepsis are the most important factors in improving the outcome of patients with this condition. However, many patients admitted to hospital experience a long delay in the diagnosis of sepsis. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for febrile patients to be sent home from the Emergency Department or the physician's office with the diagnosis of 'flu' only to return hours or days later in overt septic shock. The early diagnosis of sepsis may be challenging as many of the signs and symptoms are non-specific. Clinical studies suggest that early diagnosis of sepsis requires a high index of suspicion and comprehensive clinical evaluation together with laboratory tests, including a complete blood count with differential, lactate and procalcitonin levels.

Indexed as

EosinophilsLeukocyte CountCalcitoninC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHumansMaleProtein PrecursorsSepsisSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeCalcitoninC-Reactive ProteinProtein Precursors

Identifiers

PMID25675360
PMCPMC4331438
OpenAlexW2089884979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.