ArticleSaudi medical journal2021
The impact of emergency antibiotic administration time on patients with sepsis.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early management of adult sepsis and septic shock: Korean clinical practice guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2024Guideline
- Antimicrobial stewardship programs in sepsis treatment: principles, impact, and future directions.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- Transcriptional characterization of sepsis in a LPS porcine model.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2025Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the mortality benefits of timely antibiotic treatment of adults present at the emergency department with sepsis and compare one-hour administration and 3-hour administration starting from the time of triage.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we used secondary data analysis to investigate the utility of the National Early Warning Score as a predictor of mortality in sepsis patients between July 2018 and June 2019, at the Emergency Department, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The patients were grouped into 2 based on the time interval from triage to the first antibiotic administration: the immediate group received antibiotics within the first hour, and the early group received antibiotics between one and 3 hours. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality.
resultsOut of 495 septic patients, only 292 patients (mean age of 56.3 ± 23.6 years) met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred fifty (85.6%) patients received antibiotics within one hour of triage (immediate), while 42 (14.4%) patients received antibiotics between one and 3 hours (early). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 31.8%. The mortality rates among patients who received early antibiotic was 31.6% and who received immediate antibiotic was 33.3%, with a
conclusionOur findings did not support immediate antibiotic administration over early administration in patients with sepsis. However, further studies are recommended to investigate the effects of antibiotic timing on the outcome of severe sepsis patients.
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.