ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2017
A Comparison of Residents' Knowledge Regarding the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2012 Guideline.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prompt Identification of Sepsis on Hospital Floors: Are Healthcare Professionals Ready for the Implementation of the Hour-1 Bundle?Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Hyperlactatemia on ICU admission : Comparison between direct admissions and inpatient transfers.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline was updated. Our objective was to evaluate the knowledge of residents in different departments regarding the SSC 2012.
methodsA cross-sectional, descriptive self-questionnaire was distributed to interns and residents in the Departments of Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Emergency Medicine.
resultsThe response rate was 136 (89%) from 153 residents. The residents included 46 (33%) interns, 42 (31%) internal medicine residents, 41 (30%) surgical residents, and 7 (5%) emergency residents. Regarding the definitions of severe sepsis and septic shock, only 44 (32.4%) residents were able to differentiate the severity of sepsis. The surgical residents had a significantly lower rate of correct answers than that of internal medicine residents (12.2% vs. 45.2,
conclusionsOur residents' knowledge about the SSC 2012 is not satisfactory. Further instruction concerning sepsis management is required.
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.