ArticleEmergency medicine international2022
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and metabolomics profiling of dachaihu decoction for patients with septic liver injury: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Trial
- Acute phase proteins patterns as biomarkers in bacterial infection: Recent insights.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Analysis of factors influencing onset and survival of patients with severe acute pancreatitis: A clinical study.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Article
- Retracted:Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-11-29Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- RetractedRetracted:2023
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study is to analyze the clinical characteristics, pathogen distribution, and drug sensitivity information of adult sepsis, and to provide reference for empirical clinical use; to explore the relationship between Methods: We collected 455 cases of hospitalized patients with positive blood culture, including 352 cases with sepsis and 103 cases without sepsis; 1609 cases of hospitalized patients with suspected infection and negative blood culture, including 287 cases of sepsis, and 518 cases of non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and 804 cases of local infection. Age, gender, route of admission, admission status, CRP, PCT, and white blood cell (WBC) levels were collected from the patients. The differences between the factors were statistically analyzed, and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) was plotted to obtain the optimal cut-off values of CRP and PCT and their area under the curve (AUC), and to compare the CRP, PCT and PCT, and the CRP + PCT tandem to diagnose sepsis sensitivity and specificity. Results: (1) 387 pathogenic strains were isolated from blood cultures of patients with sepsis, 71.06% Gram-negative, 26.87% Gram-positive and 2.07% fungi. (2) Among Gram-positive bacteria, Conclusion: CRP and PCT have a good reference value for diagnosis of sepsis patients and determination of the degree of infection in septic patients, especially PCT is more valuable for diagnosis of sepsis.
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.