Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29971592›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2018

Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock.

Craig M Coopersmith, Daniel De Backer, Clifford S Deutschman, Ricard Ferrer, Ishaq Lat, Flavia R Machado, Greg S Martin, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Mark E Nunnally, Massimo Antonelli and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 NCT05849831 (The Role of Ultrasonographic Assessment of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Prediction of Sepsis Associated Encephalopathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 128 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT05849831 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Role of Ultrasonographic Assessment of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Prediction of Sepsis Associated Encephalopathy

TypeobservationalSponsorZagazig UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled89ConditionsSepsisArmsUltrasound measurement of Optic nerve sheath diameter
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

128 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors.

Craig M CoopersmithDepartment of Surgery and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Daniel De BackerChirec Hospitals, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. ddebacke@ulb.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9841-5762
Clifford S DeutschmanDepartment of Pediatrics, Cohen Children's Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Ricard FerrerIntensive Care Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Ishaq LatRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Flavia R MachadoUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Greg S MartinDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory Critical Care Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ignacio Martin-LoechesMultidisciplinary Intensive Care Research Organization (MICRO), Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Mark E NunnallyNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Massimo AntonelliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A.Gemelli-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Laura E EvansDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Bellevue Hospital Center and New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Judith HellmanUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sameer JogDeenanath Mangeshkar Hospital and Research Center, Pune, India.
Jozef KeseciogluDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mitchell M LevyRhode Island Hospital, Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Andrew RhodesDepartment of Adult Critical Care, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and St George's University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.

designA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.

methodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.

resultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?

conclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Indexed as

ResearchAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsDelivery of Health CareDisease SusceptibilityDrug CombinationsEarly DiagnosisEnergy MetabolismFluid TherapyHemofiltrationHumansImmune ToleranceMicrobiotaNutritional SupportPlasmapheresisPoint-of-Care TestingAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsDrug CombinationsVasoconstrictor AgentsPrioritiesResearchSepsisSeptic shockSurviving Sepsis Campaign

Identifiers

PMID29971592
PMCPMC7095388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.