ReviewJAMA2015
Septic Shock: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.
Review in JAMA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03977688 (Evaluating a CytoSorb Score in Septic Shock - a Retrospective Multicenter Data Analysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 89 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Evaluating a CytoSorb Score in Septic Shock - a Retrospective Multicenter Data Analysis
Who cites it
89 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is restriction of intravenous fluid beneficial for septic shock in ICU patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on severe acute kidney injury in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy combined with the application of alpha-1 adrenergic agonists on postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2018Pooled it
- Do low-dose corticosteroids improve survival or shock reversal from septic shock in adults? Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- The combined effect of statin and vitamin C in patients with pulmonary septic shock: a single-center, double-blind clinical trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Restricting volumes of resuscitation fluid in adults with septic shock after initial management: the CLASSIC randomised, parallel-group, multicentre feasibility trial.Intensive care medicine · 2016Trial
- The incorporation of focused history in checklist for early recognition and treatment of acute illness and injury.BMC emergency medicine · 2016Trial
- Article
- PScientific reports · 2026Observational
- Dexmedetomidine versus usual care in adult patients with septic shock receiving vasopressors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Review
- Article
- Usability Validation of an Integrated Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Monitoring System Using Eye-Tracking Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of septic shock from urinary and non-urinary sources in nonagenarians and centenarians admitted to intensive care units.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of stenting for carotid web and atherosclerotic disease.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Article
- Defining FulminantOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
importanceSeptic shock is a clinical emergency that occurs in more than 230,000 US patients each year. OBSERVATIONS AND ADVANCES: In the setting of suspected or documented infection, septic shock is typically defined in a clinical setting by low systolic (≤90 mm Hg) or mean arterial blood pressure (≤65 mm Hg) accompanied by signs of hypoperfusion (eg, oliguria, hyperlactemia, poor peripheral perfusion, or altered mental status). Focused ultrasonography is recommended for the prompt recognition of complicating physiology (eg, hypovolemia or cardiogenic shock), while invasive hemodynamic monitoring is recommended only for select patients. In septic shock, 3 randomized clinical trials demonstrate that protocolized care offers little advantage compared with management without a protocol. Hydroxyethyl starch is no longer recommended, and debate continues about the role of various crystalloid solutions and albumin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The prompt diagnosis of septic shock begins with obtainment of medical history and performance of a physical examination for signs and symptoms of infection and may require focused ultrasonography to recognize more complex physiologic manifestations of shock. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt administration of intravenous fluids and vasoactive medications aimed at restoring adequate circulation, and the limitations of protocol-based therapy, as guided by recent evidence.
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.