SynthesisDer Anaesthesist2021
[Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Germany. Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis].
Synthesis in Der Anaesthesist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived Trust and Professional Identity Threat in AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Scenario-Based Experimental Study on AI Process Design Features.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Prognostic impact of hypernatremia for septic shock patients in the intensive care unit.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- An AI-Based Clinical Decision Support System for Antibiotic Therapy in Sepsis (KINBIOTICS): Use Case Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Use and application of geographical restrictions in systematic reviews with the aim of including studies about Germany: An update of a methodological review.Health information and libraries journal · 2024Review
- [Functional hemodynamic monitoring].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Review
- Can linezolid be validly measured in endotracheal aspiration in critically ill patients? A proof-of-concept trial.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2024Article
- Immune profile of patients‑a new approach in management of sepsis and septic shock?Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Case report: Early detection of mesenteric ischemia by intravital microscopy in a patient with septic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- [Sepsis in German intensive care units-Last position worldwide?… Not so fast].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Article
- [Sepsis mortality in Germany-Good comparable data are currently unavailable].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Article
- [Mortality due to sepsis in Germany-A question of the representativeness!]Der Anaesthesist · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.
objectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.
resultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.
conclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.
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.