Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31657730›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2019

Sepsis hysteria: excess hype and unrealistic expectations.

Mervyn Singer, Matt Inada-Kim, Manu Shankar-Hari

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. A Coordinated and Multidisciplinary Strategy can Reduce the Time for Antibiotics in Septic Patients at a University Hospital.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Evolution of the Concept of Sepsis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  18. NEWS2 and improving outcomes from sepsis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mervyn SingerBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Medicine, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK. Electronic address: m.singer@ucl.ac.uk.
Matt Inada-KimDepartment of Acute Medicine, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK; NHS England, UK.
Manu Shankar-HariDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Peter Gorer Department of Immunobiology, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Age DistributionHospital MortalityHumansSepsisUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

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.