ArticleAnaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine2020
Quality of evidence supporting Surviving Sepsis Campaign Recommendations.
Article in Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient diversity and author representation in clinical studies supporting the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021: a systematic review of citations.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Baseline Interleukin-6 in Sepsis: Mortality Risk Stratification and Survival Analysis in a Prospective Cohort.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Biomarkers Predicting Tissue Pharmacokinetics of Antimicrobials in Sepsis: A Review.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, released in 2017, are a combination of expert opinion and evidence-based medicine, adopted by many institutions as a standard of practice. The aim was to analyse the quality of evidence supporting recommendations on the management of sepsis.
methodsThe strength and quality of evidence (high, moderate, low-very low and best practice statements) of each recommendation were extracted. Randomised controlled trials were required to qualify as high-quality evidence.
resultsA total of 96 recommendations were formulated, and 87 were included. Among thirty-one (43%) strong recommendations, only 15.2% were supported by high-quality evidence. Overall, thirty-seven (42.5%) recommendations were based on low-quality evidence, followed by 28 (32.2%) based on moderate-quality, 15 (17.2%) were best practice statements and only seven (8.0%) were supported by high-quality evidence. Randomised controlled trials supported 21.4%, 9.5% and 8.6% recommendations on mechanical ventilation, resuscitation, and management/adjuvant therapy, respectively. In contrast, none high-quality evidence recommendation supported antimicrobial/source control (82.4% were low-very low evidence or best practice statements), and nutrition.
conclusionsIn the SSC guidelines most recommendations were informed by indirect evidence and non-systematic observations. While awaiting trials results, Delphi-like approaches or multi-criteria decision analyses should guide recommendations.
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.