ReviewCurrent infectious disease reports2016
Improving the Recognition of, and Response to In-Hospital Sepsis.
Review in Current infectious disease reports, 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.
- Enhancing sepsis biomarker development: key considerations from public and private perspectives.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Sepsis Presenting in Hospitals versus Emergency Departments: Demographic, Resuscitation, and Outcome Patterns in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort.Journal of hospital medicine · 2019Article
- Prognostic accuracy of the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) and the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) among hospitalized patients assessed by a rapid response team.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although the associated mortality seems to be decreasing, approximately 20 % of patients with organ dysfunction die in hospital. Since 1991 diagnostic criteria for sepsis focused on the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). However, the utility of such criteria has been questioned, and alternative criteria have recently been proposed. It is likely that administration of early appropriate antibiotics and resolution of shock reduce sepsis-associated mortality. Accordingly, strategies need to be developed to improve the early recognition of, and response to patients with sepsis. Such system approaches may include improved acquisition and documentation of vital signs, enhanced recognition of shock, and integration of laboratory and microbiological results using clinical informatics. Hospitals should have guidelines for escalating care of septic patients, antibiotics stewardship programs, and systems to audit morbidity and mortality associated with sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27193917What 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.