ReviewCureus2022
Systematic Review on the Effects of Prompt Antibiotic Treatment on Survival in Septic Shock and Sepsis Patients in Different Hospital Settings.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty-two years ofNew microbes and new infections · 2026Article
- A peptide-based medical device for the selective removal of inflammatory factors from the blood of people with sepsis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Distinguishing critical microbial community shifts from normal temporal variability in human and environmental ecosystems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Centrifugal Microfluidic Lateral Flow Assay Enables High Sensitivity Interleukin-6 Detection and Ultrafast Readout of Elevated Analyte Levels.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Their Extracellular Vesicles Are a Promising Alternative to Antibiotics for Treating Sepsis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- COVID-19 and the brain: understanding the pathogenesis and consequences of neurological damage.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to determine the impact of prompt administration of antibiotics in evaluating the prognosis of patients with septic shock or sepsis. On January 1, 2022, we searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for English-language articles regarding when antibiotics should be administered to patients with septic shock or sepsis. These articles were required to be published between 2010 and 2021. The primary objective was sudden or expected death from any cause at a specified time. In the study, 154,330 patients from 35 sepsis trials were included. In 19 trials, the effectiveness of antibiotics administered to 20,062 patients was evaluated. Of those, 16,652 received the correct medications. In 24 studies, the length of time it took to administer antibiotics was associated with an increased mortality rate. In fourteen studies, the time limits associated with patient outcomes ranged from 1 to 125 minutes to three to six hours. In eight studies, there were hourly delays, and in two, the time it took to receive an antibiotic played a role. Separately analyzed, the outcomes for septic shock (12,756 patients in 11 trials) and sepsis (24,282 patients in six studies) were identical. Two-thirds of sepsis studies discovered a correlation between early antibiotic treatment and the patient's prognosis. However, antimicrobial timing metrics varied significantly between studies, and there were no clear time limits.
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.