Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31067656›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Current Issues and Perspectives in Patients with Possible Sepsis at Emergency Departments.

Ioannis Alexandros Charitos, Skender Topi, Francesca Castellaneta, Donato D'Agostino

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biomolecular Actions by Intestinal Endotoxemia in Metabolic Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. BMJ case reports · 2021
    Article
  8. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Special features of SARS-CoV-2 in daily practice.World journal of clinical cases · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ioannis Alexandros CharitosDepartment of Emergency/Urgency, National Poisoning Center, Riuniti University Hospital (OO.RR.) of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy. icharitos@ospedaliriunitifoggia.it.
Skender TopiSchool of Technical Medical Sciences, University A. Xhuvani, Elbasan 3001, Albania. skender.topi@uniel.edu.al.
Francesca CastellanetaSchool of Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy. fra_c@live.com.
Donato D'AgostinoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation (DETO), School of Medicine, University of Bari A. Moro, 70124 Bari, Italy. prof_d.dagostino@libero.it.
Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Elbasan · ALUniversity of Foggia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the area of Emergency Room (ER), many patients present criteria compatible with a SIRS, but only some of them have an associated infection. The new definition of sepsis by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (2016), revolutionizes precedent criteria, overcoming the concept of SIRS and clearly distinguishing the infection with the patient's physiological response from the symptoms of sepsis. Another fundamental change concerns the recognition method: The use of SOFA (Sequential-Sepsis Related-Organ Failure Assessment Score) as reference score for organ damage assessment. Also, the use of the qSOFA is based on the use of three objective parameters: Altered level of consciousness (GCS <15 or AVPU), systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg, and respiratory rate ≥ 22/min. If patients have at least two of these altered parameters in association with an infection, then there is the suspicion of sepsis. In these patients the risk of death is higher, and it is necessary to implement the appropriate management protocols, indeed the hospital mortality rate of these patients exceeds 40%. Patients with septic shock can be identified by the association of the clinical symptoms of sepsis with persistent hypotension, which requires vasopressors to maintain a MAP of 65 mmHg, and serum lactate levels >18 mg/dL in despite of an adequate volume resuscitation. Then, patient first management is mainly based on: (1) Recognition of the potentially septic patient (sepsis protocol-qSOFA); (2) Laboratory investigations; (3) Empirical antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock. With this in mind, the authors discuss the most important aspects of the sepsis in both adults and infants, and also consider the possible treatment according current guidelines. In addition, the possible role of some nutraceuticals as supportive therapy in septic patient is also discussed.

Indexed as

antibioticslaboratory diagnosisplant extractprobioticssepsissepsis managementSOFA score

Identifiers

PMID31067656
PMCPMC6627621
OpenAlexW2944031109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.