Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35922682›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2022

Body computed tomography in sepsis: predictors of CT findings and patient outcomes in a retrospective medical ICU cohort study.

Julian Pohlan, Denis Witham, Lara Farkic, Melina Anhamm, Alexandra Schnorr, Gloria Muench, Karim Breiling, Robert Ahlborn, Enrico Herz, Kerstin Rubarth and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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.

Julian PohlanDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany. julian.pohlan@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5189-4775
Denis WithamDepartment of Cardiology With Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Lara FarkicDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Melina AnhammDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Alexandra SchnorrDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Gloria MuenchDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Karim BreilingDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Robert AhlbornDepartment of Information Technology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Enrico HerzDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Kerstin RubarthBerlin Institute of Health at Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Damaris PraegerDepartment of Cardiology With Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate focus identification and control. However, international sepsis guidelines do not provide information on imaging choice. PURPOSE: To identify predictors of CT findings and patient outcomes in a population of septic patients from a medical ICU. MATERIAL AND

methodsA full-text search in the radiological information system (RIS) retrieved 227 body CT examinations conducted to identify infectious sources in 2018. CT reports were categorized according to identified foci and their diagnostic certainty. Diagnostic accuracy of CT was compared to microbiological results. Clinical and laboratory information was gathered. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric tests and logistic regression analysis.

resultsCT revealed more positive infectious foci 52.4% (n = 191/227) than microbiological tests 39.3% (n = 79/201). There were no significant differences between focus-positive CT scans with regard to positive microbiological testing (p = 0.32). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were slightly but nonsignificantly higher in patients with a focus-positive CT, odds ratio (OR) = 0.999 (95% CI 0.997-1.001) with p = 0.52. Among C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and leukocytes, in focus-positive versus focus-negative CT scans, CRP showed a minor but statistically significant elevation in the group with focus-positive CT scans (OR = 1.004, 95% CI = 1.000-1.007, p = 0.04). No significant association was found for PCT (OR = 1.007, 95% CI = 0.991-1.023; p = 0.40) or leukocytes (OR = 1.003, 95% CI = 0.970-1.038; p = 0.85). In 33.5% (n = 76/227) of cases, the CT findings had at least one therapeutic consequence. In 81.6% (n = 62/76), the CT findings resulted in one consequence, in 14.5% (n = 11/76) in two consequences, and in 3.9% (n = 3/76) in three consequences. There was no significant association between focus-positive CT scans and mortality (p = 0.81).

conclusionIn this population of septic patients in medical intensive care, microbiological analysis complemented CT findings. Both clinical and laboratory parameters were not predictive of CT findings. While therapeutic consequences of CT findings in this study population underline the role of CT for decision making in septic patients, CT findings do not predict patient outcomes in this retrospective analysis.

Indexed as

SepsisCohort StudiesC-Reactive ProteinHumansIntensive Care UnitsProcalcitoninPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedC-Reactive ProteinProcalcitoninComputed tomographyInfectious focusIntensive careSepsis

Identifiers

PMID35922682
PMCPMC9643202
OpenAlexW4289711016

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.