Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29636790›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2018

Getting the invite list right: a discussion of sepsis severity scoring systems in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis and randomized trial inclusion criteria.

Matti Tolonen, Federico Coccolini, Luca Ansaloni, Massimo Sartelli, Derek J Roberts, Jessica L McKee, Ari Leppaniemi, Christopher J Doig, Fausto Catena, Timothy Fabian and 21 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03163095 (Closed Versus Open Abdomen in the Surgical Treatment of Severe Secondary Peritonitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT03163095 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Closed Versus Open Abdomen in the Surgical Treatment of Severe Secondary Peritonitis: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2019 to 2025Enrolled550ConditionsAbdominal Sepsis, Abdominal InfectionArmsOpen Abdomen Management with ANPPT dressing, Closed Abdomen Management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2020
    Guideline
  2. The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. 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

31 authors.

Matti Tolonen1Department of Abdominal Surgery, Abdominal Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Federico Coccolini2Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy.
Luca AnsaloniUnit of General and Emergency Surgery, Bufalini Hospital of Cesena, Cesna, Italy.
Massimo SartelliDepartment of Surgery, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy.
Derek J Roberts5Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Jessica L McKee6Regional Trauma Services, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Canada.
Ari Leppaniemi1Department of Abdominal Surgery, Abdominal Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Christopher J Doig7Departments of Critical Care Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Fausto Catena8Emergency Surgery Department, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Timothy Fabian9University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN USA.
Craig N Jenne10Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Osvaldo ChiaraGeneral Surgery and Trauma Team Niguarda Hospital Milano, Milan, Italy.
Paul Kubes12Phoebe and Joan Snyder Institute for Chronic Diseases, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Yoram Kluger14Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Gustavo P Fraga15Division of Trauma Surgery, University of Campinas, Campinas, SP Brazil.
Bruno M Pereira16Trauma/Acute Care Surgery and Surgical Critical Care, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Jose J Diaz17Department of Surgery, R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School on Medicine, Baltimore, MD USA.
Michael Sugrue18Letterkenny University Hospital, Donegal Clinical Research Academy, Donegal, Ireland.
Ernest E Moore19Trauma and Critical Care Research, University of Colorado, Denver, CO USA.
Jianan Ren20Department of Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Chad G Ball21Acute Care, and Hepatobiliary Surgery, and Regional Trauma Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Raul Coimbra22Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Moreno Valley, USA.
Elijah Dixon24Surgery, Oncology, and Community Health Sciences, City Wide Section of General Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Walter Biffl25Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, La Jolla, California USA.
Anthony MacLean26Division of General Surgery Foothills Medical Centre, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Paul B McBeth5Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Juan G Posadas-Calleja10Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Salomone Di Saverio28Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Jimmy Xiao6Regional Trauma Services, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Canada.
Andrew W Kirkpatrick5Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1692-5919
From the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) for Source Control in Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database. Methods: All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality. Results: Predictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve > 0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score ≥ 2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score ≥ 8 (73.1%), SOFA ≥ 3 (75.2%), and APACHE II ≥ 14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS ≥ 8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score ≥ 3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA ≥ 4 and WSESSSS ≥ 8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality). Conclusions: No one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest "inclusion-criteria" to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095; Registered on May 22, 2017.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAgedAged, 80 and overAPACHEFemaleFinlandHumansInjury Severity ScoreLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPatient ParticipationPeritonitisPrognosisProspective StudiesEpidemiologyIntra-abdominal sepsisOrgan dysfunctionRandomized controlled trialRisk stratificationSeptic shockTrial methodology

Identifiers

PMID29636790
PMCPMC5889572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.