ArticleChinese medical journal2017
Clinical Characteristics and Current Interventions in Shock Patients in Chinese Emergency Departments: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of tachycardia for mortality in trauma-related haemorrhagic shock: a systematic review and meta-regression.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Observational
- Understanding the Harms of HES: A Review of the Evidence to Date.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2019Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock is a life-threatening condition in emergency departments (EDs) and is associated with a high mortality; however, its clinical characteristics and current interventions in China are seldom reported. This study investigated the clinical characteristics and current interventions of shock patients in Chinese EDs.
methodsThis multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in the EDs of 33 academic hospitals in 16 Chinese provinces. Adult shock patients were enrolled from December 2013 to April 2014. Age, sex, comorbidities, shock subtype, and vital signs were recorded on ED arrival; details of subsequent interventions and treatments were added. We compared those data between survivors and nonsurvivors. All patients were followed up for 3 days. The primary outcome was 3-day mortality. Binary logistic regression analysis identified the independent predictors of that mortality.
resultsWe enrolled 1095 shock patients. The 3-day mortality was 27.5%, 36.3%, and 29.0%, respectively, in the whole cohort and for cardiogenic and septic shock. Within the first 24 h, 1039 patients (94.9%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Use of bicarbonate, epinephrine, and dopamine is an independent predictor for mortality. Hemorrhage and trauma (39.1%), along with sepsis (40.4%) were the most commonly observed causes of shock in the ED. In nondiabetic patients with cardiogenic shock, 3-day mortality was 69.2% for patients needing glucose control - much higher than in those not needing glucose control (30.0%, P= 0.01). Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) was applied in 29.6% of septic shock patients, and the mortality of septic patients who received HES was much higher than those who did not (38.2% vs. 25.1%, P = 0.006).
conclusionsIn China, short-term mortality of shock patients in EDs is still high, especially among those with cardiogenic and septic shock. HES application needs to be restricted - particularly in septic shock patients.
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.