ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Plasma Transfusion in Septic Shock-A Secondary Analysis of a Retrospective Single-Center Cohort.
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 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global transfusion practices in septic patients in the intensive care unit: insights from the InPUT-study sub-analysis.Transfusion · 2025Observational
- Plasma for prevention and treatment of glycocalyx degradation in trauma and sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Efficacy of fresh frozen plasma transfusion in decompensated cirrhosis patients with coagulopathy admitted to ICU: a retrospective cohort study from MIMIC-IV database.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In sepsis, both beneficial and detrimental effects of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion have been reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the indication for and effect of FFP transfusion in patients with septic shock. We performed a secondary analysis of a retrospective single-center cohort of all patients treated for septic shock at the interdisciplinary surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of the Heidelberg University Hospital. Septic shock was defined according to sepsis-3 criteria. To assess the effects of FFP administration in the early phase of septic shock, we compared patients with and without FFP transfusion during the first 48 h of septic shock. Patients who died during the first 48 h of septic shock were excluded from the analysis. Primary endpoints were 30- and 90-day mortality. A total of 261 patients were identified, of which 100 (38.3%) received FFP transfusion within the first 48 h after septic shock onset. The unmatched analysis showed a trend toward higher 30- and 90-d mortality in the FFP group (30 d: +7%
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.