ArticleBMJ open2020
Evaluation of the role of sex as a prognostic factor in critically ill adults with sepsis: systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in critically ill adults with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- SEX DIFFERENCES IN SEPSIS-RELATED ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME AND OTHER SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES AMONG CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS WITH SEPSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY IN CHINA.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Observational
- Clinical validation and optimization of machine learning models for early prediction of sepsis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Usefulness of procalcitonin at admission as a risk-stratifying biomarker for 50-day in-hospital mortality among patients with community-acquired bloodstream infection: an observational cohort study.Biomarker research · 2023Article
- Sex differences in long-term survival after intensive care unit treatment for sepsis: A cohort study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development and evaluation of a search filter to identify prognostic factor studies in Ovid MEDLINE.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Sex as a Prognostic Factor in Systematic Reviews: Challenges and Lessons Learned.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSepsis is a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. Recently, it has been recognised that sex may contribute to a differential risk for developing sepsis and it remains uncertain if the prognosis of sepsis varies between the sexes. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the available evidence to assess the role of sex as a prognostic factor in patients with sepsis managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a systematic review protocol of prognostic studies of sex in patients with sepsis managed in the ICU. The primary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality and all-cause hospital mortality during the first 28 days. The secondary outcomes include all-cause hospital mortality during the first 7 days and all-cause mortality at 1 year. We will conduct a search strategy based on the population (sepsis), the prognostic factor (sex), the outcome of interest (mortality) and prognostic study methods. We will search in the following databases up to December 2019: MEDLINE Ovid (from 1976), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), Web of Science and two trial registries. We will impose no language restrictions. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility of studies, and subsequently extract data. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias of each study using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. If possible, we will carry out a meta-analysis to provide a pooled prognostic effect estimate for each outcome. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required. Findings from this review will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Additionally, the results will be disseminated at conferences and in the mass media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019145054.
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.