Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30685836›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2019

Intra-abdominal sepsis: new definitions and current clinical standards.

A Hecker, M Reichert, C J Reuß, T Schmoch, J G Riedel, E Schneck, W Padberg, M A Weigand, M Hecker

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Acute Abdomen: Structured Diagnosis and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Time to positivity ofVirulence · 2024
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A HeckerDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Street 7, 35392, Gießen, Germany. Andreas.Hecker@chiru.med.uni-giessen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7704-7494
M ReichertDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Street 7, 35392, Gießen, Germany.
C J ReußDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
T SchmochDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
J G RiedelDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Street 7, 35392, Gießen, Germany.
E SchneckDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
W PadbergDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Street 7, 35392, Gießen, Germany.
M A WeigandDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
M HeckerMedical Clinic II, University Hospital of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DEHeidelberg University · DEJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe abdomen is the second most common source of sepsis and is associated with unacceptably high morbidity and mortality. Recently, the essential definitions of sepsis and septic shock were updated (Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock, Sepsis-3) and modified. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the changes introduced by Sepsis-3 and the current state of the art regarding the treatment of abdominal sepsis.

resultsWhile Sepsis-1/2 focused on detecting systemic inflammation as a response to infection, Sepsis-3 defines sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guideline, which was updated in 2016, recommends rapid diagnosis and initiating standardized therapy. New diagnostic tools, the establishment of antibiotic stewardship programs, and a host of new-generation antibiotics are new landmark changes in the sepsis literature of the last few years. Although the "old" surgical source control consisting of debridement, removal of infected devices, drainage of purulent cavities, and decompression of the abdominal cavity is the gold standard of surgical care, the timing of gastrointestinal reconstruction and closure of the abdominal cavity ("damage control surgery") are discussed intensively in the literature. The SSC guidelines provide evidence-based sepsis therapy. Nevertheless, treating critically ill intensive care patients requires individualized, continuous daily re-evaluation and flexible therapeutic strategies, which can be best discussed in the interdisciplinary rounds of experienced surgeons and intensive care medicals.

Indexed as

Combined Modality TherapyEarly DiagnosisEvidence-Based MedicineHumansIntraabdominal InfectionsOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk FactorsSepsisqSOFASepsis-3SOFASurviving Sepsis Campaign

Identifiers

PMID30685836
OpenAlexW2911496224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.