ArticleJournal of intensive care medicine2020
A Prospective Study of Community Mediators on the Risk of Sepsis After Cancer.
Article in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Community-Level Social Determinants of Health and Sepsis Incidence and Mortality: A Scoping Review.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes in Cancer Patients With Sepsis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Assessing the causal relationship between non-small cell lung cancer and sepsis: a Mendelian randomization study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Causal relationships between lung cancer and sepsis: a genetic correlation and multivariate mendelian randomization analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Expert consensus on the monitoring and treatment of sepsis-induced immunosuppression.Military Medical Research · 2022Article
- COVID-19 in the Cancer Patient.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have examined whether community factors mediate the relationship between patients surviving cancer and future development of sepsis. We determined the influence of community characteristics upon risk of sepsis after cancer, and whether there are differences by race.
methodsWe performed a prospective analysis using data from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort years 2003 to 2012 complemented with county-level community characteristics from the American Community Survey and County Health Rankings. We categorized those with a self-reported prior cancer diagnosis as "cancer survivors" and those without a history of cancer as "no cancer history." We defined sepsis as hospitalization for a serious infection with ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. We examined the mediation effect of community characteristics on the association between cancer survivorship and sepsis incidence using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, race, and total number of comorbidities. We repeated analysis stratified by race.
resultsThere were 28 840 eligible participants, of which 2860 (9.92%) were cancer survivors, and 25 289 (90.08%) were no cancer history participants. The only observed community-level mediation effects were from income (% mediated 0.07%; natural indirect effect [NIE] on hazard scale] = 1.001, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.000-1.005) and prevalence of adult smoking (% mediated = 0.21%; NIE = 1.002, 95% CI: 1.000-1.004). We observed similar effects when stratified by race.
conclusionCancer survivors are at increased risk of sepsis; however, this association is weakly mediated by community poverty and smoking prevalence.
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.