ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2023
Septic shock definitions and associated outcomes in blood culture positive critically ill patients.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter evaluation of the eQUANT system for use with disk diffusion AST of gram-negative bacteria directly from positive blood cultures.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Bundle compliance patterns in septic shock and their association with patient outcomes: an unsupervised cluster analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Antimicrobial resistance in intensive care patients hospitalized with SEPSIS: a comparison between the COVID-19 pandemic and pre-pandemic era.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Liver Fibrosis Scores as Predictors of Blood-Culture-Positive and Sepsis in Patients withInfection and drug resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The proposed definition of septic shock in the Sepsis-3 consensus statement has been previously validated in critically ill patients. However, the subset of critically ill patients with sepsis and positive blood cultures needs further evaluation. To compare the combined (old and new septic shock) versus old definition of septic shock in sepsis patients that have positive blood cultures and are critically ill. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients (age ≥18 years), who had evidence of positive blood cultures, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission at a large tertiary care academic center from January 2009 through October 2015. Eligible subjects who opted out of research participation, those requiring intensive care admission after elective surgery, and those who were deemed to have a low probability of infection were excluded. Basic demographics data, clinical and laboratory parameters, and outcomes of interest were pulled from the validated institutional database/repository and contrasted between the patients who qualified the new and old definitions criteria (combined) of septic shock versus the group meeting the old septic shock criteria only. Results: We included a total of 477 patients in the final analysis who qualified for old and new septic shock definitions. For the entire cohort, median age was 65.6 (IQR, 55-75) years, with male predominance (N=258, 54%). When compared to patients in the group who only met the old definition (N=206), the patients who met the combined (new or both new and old, N=271) definition had a higher APACHE III scores, 92 (IQR, 76-112) Conclusions: In patients with sepsis with positive blood cultures, the group of patients meeting the combined definition (new or both new and old) have higher severity of illness, higher mortality, and a worse standardized mortality ratio as compared to patients meeting the old definition of septic shock.
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.