ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2016
Severe sepsis and septic shock in pre-hospital emergency medicine: survey results of medical directors of emergency medical services concerning antibiotics, blood cultures and algorithms.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Sepsis in out-of-hospital emergency medicine].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2022Review
- Construction of multifunctional porcine acellular dermal matrix hydrogel blended with vancomycin for hemorrhage control, antibacterial action, and tissue repair in infected trauma wounds.Materials today. Bio · 2021Article
- Epidemiology of septic shock in prehospital medical services in five Colombian cities.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delayed antibiotic treatment for patients in severe sepsis and septic shock decreases the probability of survival. In this survey, medical directors of different emergency medical services (EMS) in Germany were asked if they are prepared for pre-hospital sepsis therapy with antibiotics or special algorithms to evaluate the individual preparations of the different rescue areas for the treatment of patients with this infectious disease. The objective of the survey was to obtain a general picture of the current status of the EMS with respect to rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis. A total of 166 medical directors were invited to complete a short survey on behalf of the different rescue service districts in Germany via an electronic cover letter. Of the rescue districts, 25.6 % (n = 20) stated that they keep antibiotics on EMS vehicles. In addition, 2.6 % carry blood cultures on the vehicles. The most common antibiotic is ceftriaxone (third generation cephalosporin). In total, 8 (10.3 %) rescue districts use an algorithm for patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. Although the German EMS is an emergency physician-based rescue system, special opportunities in the form of antibiotics on emergency physician vehicles are missing. Simultaneously, only 10.3 % of the rescue districts use a special algorithm for sepsis therapy. Sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock do not appear to be prioritized as highly as these deadly diseases should be in the pre-hospital setting.
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.