ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2021
Development of septic shock and prognostic assessment in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease outside Wuhan, China.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for bloodstream infection in COVID-19 patients in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Magnitude of Septic Shock and its Associated Factors Among Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients at Addis Ababa COVID-19 Care Centers, Ethiopia.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study aims to illustrate the clinical characteristics and development of septic shock in intensive care unit (ICU) patients confirmed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and to perform a comprehensive analysis of the association between septic shock and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).
methodsPatients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were admitted to the ICU of the Third People's Hospital of Shenzhen from January 1 to February 7, 2020, were enrolled. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with and without septic shock.
resultsIn this study, 35 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included. Among them, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-67 years), and 10 (28.4%) patients were female. The median ICU length of stay was 16 days (IQR 8-23 days). Three (8.6%) patients died during hospitalization. Nine (25.7%) patients developed septic shock in the ICU, and these patients had a significantly higher incidence of organ dysfunction and a worse prognosis than patients without septic shock.
conclusionsSeptic shock is associated with a poor outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients and is one of the hallmarks of the severity of patients receiving ICU care. A dysregulated immune response, uncontrolled inflammation, and coagulation disorders are strongly associated with the development and progression of COVID-19-related septic shock.
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.