ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
The Preseptic Period and Inflammatory Markers in the Prediction of the Course of Sepsis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical site infections and sepsis in gynecological surgery.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Haemogram-Derived Indices for Screening and Prognostication in Critically Ill Septic Shock Patients: A Case-Control Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to find a simple and easily accessible scoring system that could predict the development of sepsis in the preseptic period. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study included 161 patients with a basal sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) value of 2 or more. The sepsis group (n=83) comprised patients with infection reported in culture results; the control group (n=78) comprised patients not showing evidence of infection in blood, urine, and phlegm cultures; samples were taken on three consecutive days. RESULTS The patients in both groups were divided into subgroups of non-survivor and survivor patients. The preseptic and septic SOFA score, neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and procalcitonin (PRC) and lactate (Lac) values were determined to be statistically significantly higher in the sepsis group than in the control group. When the values related to sepsis were examined, a strong relationship was determined between sepsis and SOFA score, PRC values, and Lac values in the preseptic period and a weak relationship with NLR. In the model formed using multiple regression analysis with defined cutoff values for the preseptic and the septic periods, we found that in the septic period, a diagnosis of sepsis could be made with 83.8% accuracy. The diagnostic value of the same parameters evaluated in the preseptic period was 77.9%. CONCLUSIONS The diagnostic value of the combination of Lac, PRC, SOFA, and NLR were found to be similar in the preseptic period as the sepsis period; thus these combined values could safely be used for the early diagnosis of sepsis.
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.