Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35329955›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

The Survival of Septic Patients with Compensated Liver Cirrhosis Is Not Inferior to That of Septic Patients without Liver Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Ya-Chun Chang, Ying-Tang Fang, Hung-Cheng Chen, Chiung-Yu Lin, Yu-Ping Chang, Yi-Hsuan Tsai, Yu-Mu Chen, Kuo-Tung Huang, Huang-Chih Chang, Chin-Chou Wang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SOFA-2 Score and Mortality in Suspected Infection Stratified by Cirrhosis Status: A Multi-Institutional Observational Cohort Study.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ya-Chun ChangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Ying-Tang FangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Hung-Cheng ChenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Chiung-Yu LinDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Yu-Ping ChangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2535-5954
Yi-Hsuan TsaiDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8891-3124
Yu-Mu ChenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Kuo-Tung HuangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Huang-Chih ChangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Chin-Chou WangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Meng-Chih LinDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.
Wen-Feng FangDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-0350-9059
Chang Gung University · TWChang Gung University of Science and Technology · TW

Funding

Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPG8B1063Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPG8H1171Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPG8J0421Chang Gung Memorial Hospital CMRPG8J0422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We aimed to determine whether septic patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) had worse survival than septic patients without liver cirrhosis (WLC). We also investigated the survival of septic patients with compensated liver cirrhosis (CLC) and decompensated liver cirrhosis (DLC). Methods: This study enrolled 776 consecutive adult patients with sepsis admitted to the medical intensive care units of a tertiary referral hospital. Clinical factors and laboratory data were collected for analysis. Propensity scoring was also used for the control of selection bias. The variables included in the propensity model were age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular accident, chronic kidney disease, malignancy, APCHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score, hemoglobin, and platelet data on the day when sepsis was confirmed. Seven-day, ICU, and hospital mortality were analyzed after correcting for these confounding factors. Results: Of the 776 septic patients, 64 (8.2%) septic patients presented with LC. Patients were divided into two groups—LC (n = 64) and WLC (n = 712)—which presented different rates of hospital mortality (LC: 62.5% vs. WLC: 41.0%, p = 0.001). We further separated septic patients with LC into two groups: patients with CLC (n = 24) and those with DLC (n = 40). After propensity score matching, the survival of septic patients with CLC (63.6%) was not inferior to patients WLC (54.5%) (p = 0.411). Patients with DLC had more hospital mortality, even after matching (p < 0.05). The Quick SOFA (qSOFA) score, SOFA score, and sub-SOFA score were also comparable between groups. SOFA scores were not significantly different between the CLC and WLC groups after matching. Poor SOFA scores were observed in the DLC group on days 3 and 7 after matching (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Septic patients with LC had higher mortality compared to patients WLC before matching. However, after propensity score matching, the survival of septic patients with CLC was non-inferior to patients WLC.

Indexed as

intensive careliver cirrhosispropensity scoresepsis

Identifiers

PMID35329955
PMCPMC8951259
OpenAlexW4220966622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.