ArticleSingapore medical journal2019
Complicated intra-abdominal infections: a prospective validation study of the WSES Sepsis Severity Score.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open abdomen versus primary closure in the management of severe abdominal sepsis: What is the right way? Results of the last 5 years of a reference center.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Management of abdominal tuberculosis in a community-based hospital in a high-income developing country.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2021Article
- Novel Multiparametric Nomogram for Overall Survival Prediction in Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: A Multicenter Study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) recently developed and validated a sepsis severity score for complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). We aimed to prospectively study the validity of this score in our local setting and compare it with global findings.
methodsIn a prospective study of 100 consecutive adult patients with cIAIs treated at Al-Ain Hospital, United Arab Emirates, from October 2014 to January 2016, we studied patients' demographics, disease, risk factors, WSES Sepsis Severity Score, management, hospital stay and mortality. Our findings were compared with those from a recent global multicentre prospective study from 53 countries (n = 4,496).
resultsCompared with global data, our patients were more likely to be male (p < 0.0001) and younger (p < 0.0001), with more appendicitis and perforated peptic ulcers (p < 0.0001), significantly lower sepsis severity score (p < 0.0001) and more delays in surgical intervention (p = 0.001). Nevertheless, they had similar adequate source control (p = 0.54) and surgical reinterventions (p = 0.63). Overall, our patients had a significantly lower mortality rate (1.0% vs. 9.3% in global data; p = 0.001). A direct logistic regression model showed that the WSES Sepsis Severity Score significantly predicted mortality (p < 0.0001), but our hospital's setting was not predictive of mortality compared with other hospitals (p = 0.18).
conclusionAlthough our patient demographics and hospital's setting significantly differed from those of other international hospitals, the WSES Sepsis Severity Score was very accurate in predicting mortality among our patients, which supports its generalisability for all patient populations worldwide.
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.