ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Shock in China 2018 (SIC-study): a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of mortality and predictors among patients with shock managed in the emergency room of a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- Shock epidemiology and outcomes among internal medicine patients.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2025Article
- Comprehensive analysis of vulnerability status and associated affect factors among prehospital emergency patients: a single-center descriptive cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Erratum to shock in China 2018 (SIC-study): a cross-sectional survey.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock is a critical illness that seriously threatens the lives of patients. This study explains the epidemiology of shock, mortality of shock, and identify factors that related to hospital death.
methodsThis is a multi-centre cross-sectional survey, which included 1,064 tertiary hospitals in 31 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions across China mainland. Totally 289,428 patients who diagnosed with shock based on the ICD-10 abstracted from the Hospital Quality Monitoring System (HQMS) in 2018, a national database administrated by National Health Commission of the PRC.
resultsPatients diagnosed with shock were screened and classified according to the type of shock. Regression analysis was used to identify factors that related to death. A total of 79,668,156 medical records were included in HQMS in 2018, from which a total of 289,428 records with shock were identified. Hypovolemic shock occurred in 128,436 cases (44.38%), septic shock occurred in 121,543 cases (41.99%), cardiogenic shock occurred in 44,597 cases (15.41), and obstructive shock occurred in 3,168 cases (1.09%). Of these, 8,147 cases (2.81%) had mixed shock, which means had two or more types of shock. For all the shock cases, the top three frequent concomitant diseases recorded were circulatory system diseases (55.22%), digestive system diseases (53.64%), and respiratory system diseases (53.31%). Of the four types of shock, cases with cardiogenic shock had the highest in-hospital mortality (31.6%), followed by those with obstructive shock (25.2%), septic shock (22.9%), and hypovolemic shock (15.5%). Interestingly, the combination of shock and malignant tumors is one of the major factors that related to hospital deaths.
conclusionsShock is a serious disease with a high fatality rate and huge clinical costs. According to this epidemiological survey of shock in China 2018, we should clarify the factors related to the hospital death in shock cases.
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.