ArticleCureus2022
The Variation in Outcomes of Septic Patients: A Dual-Centre Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Despite significant advances in the field of medicine, sepsis is constantly growing as a major public health concern. The global epidemic of sepsis imposes a significant economic burden on healthcare systems world-over. Furthermore, its high prevalence in society is inevitably paralleled by an excessive mortality rate, with approximately six million deaths reported every year. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare, the management of acutely septic patients against outcomes in a tertiary teaching institution in Pakistan versus a similar one in the United Kingdom. Methods This study was a dual-centred, retrospective comparative analysis comparing all patients admitted through the emergency department at the respective tertiary centres. Patient details were collected and compared across the two sites to evaluate the effect of individual characteristics on prognosis. The outcomes of these presentations were analysed by comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, admission to the ICU or discharge. Results The total number of patients identified as having sepsis was 60 in the Pakistan cohort, and 92 in the Aberdeen cohort. No significant difference was found when comparing genders, and the results of basic observations were largely similar at presentation. Twenty-five per cent (25%) (n=38) of the total study population were deemed to have a poor outcome at 3 days, but 50% of the Pakistan cohort was deemed to have a poor outcome. Conclusion Managing sepsis has developed significantly in recent years, but most of this development was implemented in high-income countries. There was a significant delay in time to resuscitate septic patients in Pakistan, with significantly raised three-day morbidity and mortality. There is a need for further comparative studies of the management of sepsis in Pakistan and other low-income countries to identify the problems and tackle obstacles on every level of the healthcare system.
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.