Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34316171›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2021

How Robust are the Evidences that Formulate Surviving Sepsis Guidelines? An Analysis of Fragility and Reverse Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Referred in these Guidelines.

Nang S Choupoo, Saurabh K Das, Priyam Saikia, Samarjit Dey, Sumit Ray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Data Analysis will not Result in Knowledge Production about Sepsis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Nang S ChoupooDepartment of Anesthesia, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical Institute and Dr RML Hospital, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6270-3981
Saurabh K DasDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Artemis Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7798-4528
Priyam SaikiaDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati, Assam, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-484X
Samarjit DeyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, AIIMS, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8211-253X
Sumit RayDepartment of Critical Care, Holy Family Hospital, Delhi, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5192-4711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives"Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016" provides guidelines in regard to prompt management and resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock. The study is aimed to assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that formulate these guidelines in terms of fragility index and reverse fragility index.

methodRCTs that contributed to these guidelines having parallel two-group design, 1:1 allocation ratio, and at least one dichotomous outcome were included in the study. The median fragility index was calculated for RCTs with significant statistical outcomes, whereas the median reverse fragility index was calculated for RCTs with nonsignificant statistical results.

resultsHundred RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The median fragility index was 5.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1-30] and median reverse fragility index was 13 (95% CI 12.07-16.8) at a

conclusionThis analysis found that the surviving sepsis guidelines were based on highly robust RCTs with statistically insignificant results and on some moderately robust RCTs with statistically significant results. RCTs with statistically insignificant results were more robust than RCTs with statistically significant results in regard to these guidelines. HIGHLIGHTS: The study assessed the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were used to formulate surviving sepsis guidelines. Most RCTs showed statistically nonsignificant results. RCTs with statistically significant results were moderately fragile whereas RCTs with nonsignificant results were more robust. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Choupoo NS, Das SK, Saikia P, Dey S, Ray S. How Robust are the Evidences that Formulate Surviving Sepsis Guidelines? An Analysis of Fragility and Reverse Fragility of Randomized Controlled Trials that were Referred in these Guidelines. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(7):773-779.

Indexed as

Fragility indexRevised fragility indexSurviving sepsis guidelines

Identifiers

PMID34316171
PMCPMC8286372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.