ArticleBurns & trauma2023
The clinical differentiation of blood culture-positive and -negative sepsis in burn patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Burns & trauma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical characteristics and risk factors of mortality in patients with candidemia: a four-year retrospective study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for hospital mortality in adult patients withFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Early Detection, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Infection to Avoid Sepsis and Septic Shock in Severely Burned Patients: A Narrative Review.European burn journal · 2025Review
- 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
- Basic helix-loop-helix ARNT like 1 regulates the function of immune cells and participates in the development of immune-related diseases.Burns & trauma · 2025Review
- Predictors of Sepsis and Sepsis-related Mortality in Critically Ill Burn Patients: A Single Tertiary Care Center Experience.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Distribution of Nosocomial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance among Patients with Burn Injuries in China: A Comprehensive Research Synopsis and Meta-Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- Identification and validation of diagnostic biomarkers and immune cell abundance characteristics inFrontiers in immunology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the body's response to infection leads to widespread inflammation and tissue damage. Negative cultures can make it difficult for clinicians to make a diagnosis and may raise questions about the validity of the definition of sepsis. In addition, the clinical distinctions between burn patients with blood culture-positive and -negative sepsis are also poorly understood. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the clinical differences between blood culture-positive and -negative sepsis in burn patients in order to improve the understanding of the pathophysiology and epidemiology of sepsis in this population. Methods: This study had a retrospective design, and the participants were adults aged ≥18 years. Patients diagnosed with sepsis were divided into two groups based on their blood culture results within 1 week of sepsis diagnosis. Results: We enrolled 1643 patients admitted to our institution's burn intensive care unit between January 2010 and December 2021. pH, platelet count, bicarbonate and haematocrit were significant in both the positive and negative groups. However, lymphocyte, red cell distribution width and blood urea nitrogen were significant only in the positive group, whereas lactate dehydrogenase was significant only in the negative group. Conclusions: pH, platelet count, bicarbonate and haematocrit were routine biomarkers that demonstrated statistical significance in both groups. Lactate dehydrogenase was significant in the blood-negative group, while red cell distribution width, blood urea nitrogen and lymphocyte count were significant in the positive group. Furthermore, the most common causes of sepsis are gram-negative bacteria, including
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.