ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016
Implementing sepsis bundles.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multicenter Study in Northern Italy to Evaluate the Impact of a Sepsis Bundle in Obstetric Settings: The SOS Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- A novel group decision making method based on CoCoSo and interval-valued Q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sepsis and Clinical Simulation: What Is New? (and Old).Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Preventative Management of Sepsis-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Geriatric Population.Cureus · 2023Review
- Sepsis 2019: What Surgeons Need to Know.Surgical infections · 2020Review
- Sepsis: The evolution in definition, pathophysiology, and management.SAGE open medicine · 2019Review
- Can the global end-diastolic volume index guide fluid management in septic patients? A multicenter randomized controlled trial.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis bundles represent key elements of care regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with septic shock and allow ones to convert complex guidelines into meaningful changes in behavior. Sepsis bundles endorsed the early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) and their implementation resulted in an improved outcome of septic shock patients. They induced more consistent and timely application of evidence-based care and reduced practice variability. These benefits mainly depend on the compliance with sepsis bundles, highlighting the importance of dedicated performance improvement initiatives, such as multifaceted educational programs. Nevertheless, the interest of early goal directed therapy in septic shock patients compared to usual care has recently been questioned, leading to an update of sepsis bundles in 2015. These new sepsis bundles may also exhibit, as the previous bundles, some limits and pitfalls and the effects of their implementation still needs to be evaluated.
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.