Trial reportShock (Augusta, Ga.)2017
Comparison of the Performance Between Sepsis-1 and Sepsis-3 in ICUs in China: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Trial report in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- A comparison of pediatric sepsis definitions based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome and Phoenix criteria: a single-center PICU retrospective study.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Early albumin infusion and mortality in elderly patients with sepsis based on analysis of the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of predictive performance of "organ failure assessment by ratio score" to predict sepsis mortality in Indian intensive care unit patients: An observational study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Agreement between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions among Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Exosomes as novel biomarkers in sepsis and sepsis related organ failure.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Dissecting the mediating role of cytokines in the interaction between immune traits and sepsis: insights from comprehensive mendelian randomization.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The role of inflammatory response and metabolic reprogramming in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: mechanistic insights and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Risk Factors Analysis and Prediction Model Establishment for Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Colonization: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Integrated analysis of multi-omics data reveals T cell exhaustion in sepsis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- A bibliometric analysis of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction from 2002 to 2022.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Development of a Nomogram for Predicting Mortality Risk in Sepsis Patients During Hospitalization: A Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Prognostic Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score in Critically-Ill Combat-Injured Patients.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Bacteremic sepsis leads to higher mortality when adjusting for confounders with propensity score matching.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Role and Mechanism of Pyroptosis and Potential Therapeutic Targets in Sepsis: A Review.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Usefulness of sialic acid for diagnosis of sepsis in critically ill patients: a retrospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2020Article
- A Comparison of Sepsis-2 (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Based) to Sepsis-3 (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Based) Definitions-A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Challenges in developing a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis.Pediatric research · 2020Review
- External validity of Adult Sepsis Event's simplified eSOFA criteria: a retrospective analysis of patients with confirmed infection in China.Annals of intensive care · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Sepsis Mortality Risk Score for Sepsis-3 Patients in Intensive Care Unit.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The definition of sepsis was updated to sepsis-3 in February 2016. However, the performance of the previous and new definition of sepsis remains unclear in China. This was a retrospective multicenter study in six intensive care unit (ICUs) from five university-affiliated hospitals to compare the performance between sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 in China. From May 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016, 496 patients were enrolled consecutively. Data were extracted from the electronic clinical records. We evaluated the performance of sepsis-1 and sepsis-3 by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) to predict 28-day mortality rates. Of 496 enrolled patients, 186 (37.5%) were diagnosed with sepsis according to sepsis-1, while 175 (35.3%) fulfilled the criteria of sepsis-3. The AUROC of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is significantly smaller than that of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) (0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.64] vs. 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77], P = 0.008) to predict 28-day mortality rates of infected patients. Moreover, 5.9% infected patients (11 patients) were diagnosed as sepsis according to sepsis-1 but not to sepsis-3. The APACHE II, SOFA scores, and mortality rate of the 11 patients were significantly lower than of patients whose sepsis was defined by both the previous and new criteria (8.6±3.5 vs. 16.3±6.2, P = < 0.001; 1 (0-1) vs. 6 (4-8), P = <0.001; 0.0 vs. 33.1%, P = 0.019). In addition, the APACHE II, length of stay in ICU, and 28-day mortality rate of septic patients rose gradually corresponding with the raise in SOFA score (but not the SIRS score). Sepsis-3 performed better than sepsis-1 in the study samples in ICUs in China.
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.