ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Sepsis and Cognitive Assessment.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements in Immunity and Dementia Research: Highlights from the 2023 AAIC Advancements: Immunity Conference.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Sex, sepsis and the brain: defining the role of sexual dimorphism on neurocognitive outcomes after infection.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Review
- Instruments Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Survivors of Critical Illness and Reporting of Race Norms: A Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sepsis disproportionally affects people over the age of 65, and with an exponentially increasing older population, sepsis poses additional risks for cognitive decline. This review summarizes published literature for (1) authorship qualification; (2) the type of cognitive domains most often assessed; (3) timelines for cognitive assessment; (4) the control group and analysis approach, and (5) sociodemographic reporting. Using key terms, a PubMed database review from January 2000 to January 2021 identified 3050 articles, and 234 qualified as full text reviews with 18 ultimately retained as summaries. More than half (61%) included an author with an expert in cognitive assessment. Seven (39%) relied on cognitive screening tools for assessment with the remaining using a combination of standard neuropsychological measures. Cognitive domains typically assessed were declarative memory, attention and working memory, processing speed, and executive function. Analytically, 35% reported on education, and 17% included baseline (pre-sepsis) data. Eight (44%) included a non-sepsis peer group. No study considered sex or race/diversity in the statistical model, and only five studies reported on race/ethnicity, with Caucasians making up the majority (74%). Of the articles with neuropsychological measures, researchers report acute with cognitive improvement over time for sepsis survivors. The findings suggest avenues for future study designs.
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.