Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36673087›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Fast Track Diagnostic Tools for Clinical Management of Sepsis: Paradigm Shift from Conventional to Advanced Methods.

Ena Gupta, Juhi Saxena, Sanni Kumar, Umang Sharma, Saundarya Rastogi, Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Sanket Kaushik, Anupam Jyoti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Mechanisms ofFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. State of the art of sepsis care for the emergency medicine clinician.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    Review
  10. New Agents Are Coming, and So Is the Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

8 authors.

Ena GuptaAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Rajasthan, Amity Education Valley, Kant Kalwar, NH-11C, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur 303002, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3857-5825
Juhi SaxenaDepartment of Biotechnology, University Institute of Biotechnology, Chandigarh University, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar 140413, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7555-4292
Sanni KumarAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Rajasthan, Amity Education Valley, Kant Kalwar, NH-11C, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur 303002, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3616-5483
Umang SharmaDepartment of Biotechnology, University Institute of Biotechnology, Chandigarh University, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar 140413, India.
Saundarya RastogiAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Rajasthan, Amity Education Valley, Kant Kalwar, NH-11C, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur 303002, India.
Vijay Kumar SrivastavaAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Rajasthan, Amity Education Valley, Kant Kalwar, NH-11C, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur 303002, India.
Sanket KaushikAmity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University Rajasthan, Amity Education Valley, Kant Kalwar, NH-11C, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur 303002, India.
Anupam JyotiDepartment of Biotechnology, University Institute of Biotechnology, Chandigarh University, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar 140413, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4135-7466

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis is one of the deadliest disorders in the new century due to specific limitations in early and differential diagnosis. Moreover, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is becoming the dominant threat to human health globally. The only way to encounter the spread and emergence of AMR is through the active detection and identification of the pathogen along with the quantification of resistance. For better management of such disease, there is an essential requirement to approach many suitable diagnostic techniques for the proper administration of antibiotics and elimination of these infectious diseases. The current method employed for the diagnosis of sepsis relies on the conventional culture of blood suspected infection. However, this method is more time consuming and generates results that are false negative in the case of antibiotic pretreated samples as well as slow-growing microbes. In comparison to the conventional method, modern methods are capable of analyzing blood samples, obtaining accurate results from the suspicious patient of sepsis, and giving all the necessary information to identify the pathogens as well as AMR in a short period. The present review is intended to highlight the culture shift from conventional to modern and advanced technologies including their limitations for the proper and prompt diagnosing of bloodstream infections and AMR detection.

Indexed as

advanced methodsantimicrobial resistanceconventional methodsearly diagnosismodern methodssepsis

Identifiers

PMID36673087
PMCPMC9857847

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.