Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36089642›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2022

Scoping review on diagnostic criteria and investigative approach in sepsis of unknown origin in critically ill patients.

Lowell Ling, Oliver Oi Yat Mui, Kevin B Laupland, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Jason A Roberts, Pragasan Dean Gopalan, Jeffrey Lipman, Gavin M Joynt, CaBoOM investigators

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Lowell LingDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China. lowell.ling@cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-7344
Oliver Oi Yat MuiFaculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Kevin B LauplandDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jean-Yves LefrantUR-UM103 IMAGINE, University of Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Jason A RobertsUR-UM103 IMAGINE, University of Montpellier, Division of Anesthesia Critical Care, Pain and Emergency Medicine, Nîmes University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Pragasan Dean GopalanDiscipline of Anaesthesiology & Critical Care, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Jeffrey LipmanDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Gavin M JoyntDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
CaBoOM investigators
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKQueensland University of Technology · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversité de Montpellier · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier · FRUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUp to 11% of critically ill patients with sepsis have an unknown source, where the pathogen and site of infection are unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to document currently reported diagnostic criteria of sepsis of unknown origin (SUO) and identify the types and breadth of existing evidence supporting diagnostic processes to identify the infection source in critically ill patients with suspected SUO.

methodsA literature search of Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed for published studies from 1910 to August 19, 2021 addressing the topic of SUO was performed. Study type, country of origin according to World Bank classification, diagnostic criteria of sepsis of unknown origin, and investigative approaches were extracted from the studies.

resultsFrom an initial 722 studies, 89 unique publications fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included for full text review. The most common publication type was case report/series 45/89 (51%). Only 10/89 (11%) of studies provided a diagnostic criteria of SUO, but a universally accepted diagnostic criterion was not identified. The included studies discussed 30/89 (34%) history, 23/89 (26%) examination, 57/89 (64%) imaging, microbiology 39/89 (44%), and special tests 32/89 (36%) as part of the diagnostic processes in patients with SUO.

conclusionsUniversally accepted diagnostic criteria for SUO was not found. Prospective studies on investigative processes in critically ill patients managed as SUO across different healthcare settings are needed to understand the epidemiology and inform the diagnostic criteria required to diagnose SUO.

Indexed as

CriteriaDiagnosisExaminationHistoryICUImagingInfectionInvestigationSearchSepsis

Identifiers

PMID36089642
PMCPMC9465866
OpenAlexW4295159946

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.