Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27229638›Full record

ReviewClinics in chest medicine2016

Risk Stratification and Prognosis in Sepsis: What Have We Learned from Microarrays?

Timothy E Sweeney, Hector R Wong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in chest medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Timothy E SweeneyDepartment of Surgery, Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hector R WongDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation, 3333 Burnet Avenue, MLC2005, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA; Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. Electronic address: hector.wong@cchmc.org.

Funding

Novel diagnostic and stratification tools for septic shockR01GM108025 · NIGMS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI WONG, HECTOR R. · 2014 to 2017
$2.3M
Stratification of pediatric septic shockR01GM099773 · NIGMS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI WONG, HECTOR R. · 2012 to 2015
$1.5M
MMP-8 as a novel therapeutic target in sepsisR01GM096994 · NIGMS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI WONG, HECTOR R. · 2011 to 2014
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM096994NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099773NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM108025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis mortality rates have decreased in recent years but remain unacceptably high. Risk stratification and prognostication is of particular importance because high-risk patients may benefit from earlier clinical interventions, whereas low-risk patients may benefit from not undergoing unnecessary procedures. Prognostication is currently done mostly via clinical criteria and blood lactate levels. This article summarizes the literature on the complexity of changes at the molecular level for the casual reader.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHumansPrognosisRiskSepsisTissue Array AnalysisBiomarkersBiomarkerGene expressionMicroarrayPrognosticsSepsis

Identifiers

PMID27229638
PMCPMC4884300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.