Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28460438›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

Early outcome of early-goal directed therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xiaofan Chen, Weifeng Zhu, Jing Tan, Heyun Nie, Liangming Liu, Dongmei Yan, Xu Zhou, Xin Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Septic shock in the ER: diagnostic and management challenges.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2019
    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

8 authors.

Xiaofan ChenChinese Cochrane Centre, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuang, China.
Weifeng ZhuEvidence-Based Medicine Research Centre, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Jing TanChinese Cochrane Centre, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuang, China.
Heyun NieEvidence-Based Medicine Research Centre, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Liangming LiuState Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injury, Second Department of Research Institute of Surgery, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Dongmei YanEvidence-Based Medicine Research Centre, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Xu ZhouEvidence-Based Medicine Research Centre, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Xin SunChinese Cochrane Centre, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various trials and meta-analyses have reported conflicting results concerning the application of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) for sepsis and septic shock. The aim of this study was to update the evidence by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple databases were searched from initial through August, 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which investigated the associations between the use of EGDT and mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model and heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analyses. The primary outcome of interest was patient all-cause mortality including hospital or ICU mortality. Seventeen RCTs including 6207 participants with 3234 in the EGDT group and 2973 in the control group were eligible for this study. Meta-analysis showed that EGDT did not significantly reduce hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02) compared with control group for patients with sepsis or septic shock. The findings of subgroup analyses stratified by study region, number of research center, year of enrollment, clinical setting, sample size, timing of EGDT almost remained constant with that of the primary analysis. Our findings provide evidence that EGDT offers neutral survival effects for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Further meta-analyses based on larger well-designed RCTs or individual patient data meta-analysis are required to explore the survival benefits of EDGT in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Indexed as

Time-to-TreatmentCombined Modality TherapyDisease ManagementHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsOdds RatioPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSepsisShock, SepticTreatment Outcomeearly-goal directed therapymeta-analysisrandomized controlled trialsepsisseptic shock

Identifiers

PMID28460438
PMCPMC5432353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.