SynthesisIntensive care medicine2018
Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates.
Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05193045 (Prognosis of Klebsiella ESBL Sepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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.
Prognosis of Klebsiella ESBL Sepsis: Role of 2-HYDRoxy-myristate in Endotoxin Structure
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Implementation of a kidney protection strategy to prevent acute kidney injury after major surgery in high-risk patients identified by biomarkers: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Intensive care medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The effects of vasopressor choice on renal outcomes in septic shock: a systematic review of randomised trials as a guide for future research.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- [Early source control of infection in patients seen in the emergency department: a systematic review].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Pooled it
- Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research.Intensive care medicine · 2021Pooled it
- National Early Warning Score Does Not Accurately Predict Mortality for Patients With Infection Outside the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Intensive care medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Trends in sepsis mortality over time in randomised sepsis trials: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of mortality in the control arm, 2002-2016.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Intensive care medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of data driven personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Trial
- Right dose, right now: bedside, real-time, data-driven, and personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock-a two-centre randomised clinical trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Trial
- What place for pragmatic RCTs in intensive care?Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- The effectiveness of tissue-perfusion-guided resuscitation in shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning model for predicting septic shock in critically sepsis patients based on coagulation indexes: A multicenter cohort study.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2025Article
- An In-Silico Study to Identify Relevant Biomarkers in Sepsis Applying Integrated Bulk RNA Sequencing and Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Analyses.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Article
- An Easy and Quick Risk-Stratified Early Forewarning Model for Septic Shock in the Intensive Care Unit: Development, Validation, and Interpretation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Examining pancreatic stone protein response in ICU-acquired bloodstream infections: a matched event analysis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Conventional and unconventional T-cell responses contribute to the prediction of clinical outcome and causative bacterial pathogen in sepsis patients.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Article
- Application of AI in Sepsis: Citation Network Analysis and Evidence Synthesis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough the definition of septic shock has been standardized, some variation in mortality rates among clinical trials is expected. Insights into the sources of heterogeneity may influence the design and interpretation of septic shock studies. We set out to identify inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics associated with between-trial differences in control group mortality rates.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of RCTs published between 2006 and 2018 that included patients with septic shock. The percentage of variance in control-group mortality attributable to study heterogeneity rather than chance was measured by I
resultsSixty-five septic shock RCTs were included. Overall control-group mortality was 38.6%, with significant heterogeneity (I
conclusionsAmong 65 septic shock trials, there was a clinically relevant amount of heterogeneity in control group mortality rates which was explained only partly by differences in inclusion criteria and reported baseline characteristics.
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.