Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32287818›Full record

ReviewSurgery (Oxford, Oxfordshire)2015

Sepsis in the intensive care unit.

Sean R Bennett

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgery (Oxford, Oxfordshire), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

1 author.

Sean R Bennettis a Head of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care at the Cardiac Centre, NGHA, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Conflicts of interest: none declared.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis remains a major cause of mortality in intensive care. The past 15 years has seen a more uniform, world-wide approach to the management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock with improved survival. Recognizing the early symptoms and signs of sepsis are key: the confused, hypoxic, hypotensive patient with pyrexia, tachycardia, tachypnoea and leucocytosis. Examination must include search for a source of infection and early drainage or debridement. Next to take appropriate cultures, give fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. If the picture does not improve over the next 6 hours step-up the treatment to include urine output monitoring, blood gases for base excess, lactate, haemoglobin and glucose. These will guide the management of vasopressors, insulin, fluids, transfusion and bicarbonate. If the hypotension persists (septic shock) the patient should be moved to intensive care. The most recent recommendations include the withdrawal of starch based colloids, dobutamine in place of dopamine and a higher threshold for the use of steroids. This should be instituted within 24 hours of the start of sepsis. Advanced care includes mechanical ventilation using the ARDSnet protocol. Prevention by screening, stopping cross infection and appropriate use of antibiotics remains the first priority.

Indexed as

Intensive caresepsisseptic shocksevere sepsis

Identifiers

PMID32287818
PMCPMC7143675

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.