ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Culture-Positive and Culture-Negative Sepsis and Septic Shock Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Review
- Procalcitonin levels in septic and nonseptic subjects with AKI and ESKD prior to and during continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT).Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Risk factors of acute kidney injury, septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with blood culture‑positive sepsis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Culture-negative sepsis may be a different entity from culture-positive sepsis: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between culture-positive and culture-negative sepsis or septic shock pediatrics patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Qatar medical journal · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the clinical outcomes between culture-positive and culture-negative sepsis or septic patients. The present meta-analysis is reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, were searched by two authors independently from the inception to January 25, 2023, using the following key terms: "culture positive," "culture negative," "sepsis," and "septic shock." The primary outcome assessed in the present meta-analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay in days, and length of hospital stay in days. Total 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis involving 23,973 patients. No statistically significant difference was found between culture-positive and culture-negative patients in terms of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.95-1.24, p-value: 0.23), the need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.93-1.05, p-value: 0.79), renal replacement therapy requirements (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.95-1.31, p-value: 0.19), and ICU length of stay (mean difference [MD]: 1.70 days, 95% CI: -1.10, 4.49, p-value: 0.23). However, The mean hospital length of stay in days was significantly longer in patients in a culture-positive group compared to the culture-negative group (MD: 3.04, 95% CI: 2.25-3.82, p-value<0.001). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis of 10 studies, including 23,973 patients, found no significant differences in all-cause mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for renal replacement therapy, and length of ICU stay between culture-positive and culture-negative sepsis or septic patients. However, a significant difference was found in hospital length of stay, with culture-positive patients having a longer stay.
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.