Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941681›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2023

Host Response Biomarkers for Sepsis in the Emergency Room.

Oren Turgman, Michiel Schinkel, Willem Joost Wiersinga

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of PCT, IL-6, and MR-ProADM for early identification of sepsis in the emergency department.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Early Prediction of Septic Shock in Emergency Department Using Serum Metabolites.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025
    Article
  13. Novel biomarkers for acute phase reactants.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Oren TurgmanCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel SchinkelCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem Joost WiersingaCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.j.wiersinga@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2023. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2023 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Indexed as

Emergency MedicineSepsisBiomarkersCritical CareEmergency Service, HospitalHumansIntensive Care UnitsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID36941681
PMCPMC10027585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read28
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.