Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38452037›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2024

Comparison of five different disseminated intravascular coagulation criteria in predicting mortality in patients with sepsis.

Amara Zafar, Filza Naeem, Muhammad Zain Khalid, Safia Awan, Muhammad Mehmood Riaz, Saad Bin Zafar Mahmood

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06581172 (Significance of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Score in Mortality for Children With Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

NCT06581172 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Significance of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Score in Mortality for Children With Shock

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAssiut UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled80ConditionsShock, SepticArmsD_dimer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. The Differential Diagnosis of Thromobocytopenia.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amara ZafarDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-8063-0691
Filza NaeemDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0009-3434-5107
Muhammad Zain KhalidDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0009-3150-3253
Safia AwanDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Mehmood RiazDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Saad Bin Zafar MahmoodDepartment of Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-6840-0401
Aga Khan University Hospital · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEven though patients with sepsis and DIC have a higher mortality rate compared to those without DIC, screening for DIC is not currently part of sepsis management protocols. This may be due to a lack of literature on the frequency of DIC occurrence in sepsis patients, as well as the absence of evidence on the optimal DIC criteria to use for identifying DIC and predicting mortality among the five criteria available. To address this gap, this study investigates the predictive value of five different criteria for diagnosing DIC and its relationship to patient outcomes in our population of sepsis patients.

methodsIn the Medicine department of Aga Khan University Hospital, a retrospective observational study was conducted, enrolling all adult patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding of sepsis and clinical suspicion of DIC between January 2018 and December 2020. To diagnose DIC, five different criteria were utilized, namely the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH), the Korean Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (KSTH), the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM), the revised-JAAM (RJAAM), and the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (JMHW). The study analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy of these five criteria, as well as the overall prediction of mortality.

resultsOf 222 septic patients included in this study with clinical suspicion of DIC, 94.6% of patient had DIC according to KSTH criteria, followed by JAAM (69.4%), ISTH (64.0%), JMHW (53.2%) and lastly R-JAAM (48.6%). KSTH had sensitivity of 95.4% in diagnosing DIC and predicting mortality with a positive predictive value of 70% but specificity of 7.3% only. JAAM had sensitivity of 75.9%, positive predictive value of 75.9% with a specificity of 45.5%. ISTH had sensitivity of 69.4%, positive predictive value 75.3% and specificity of 48.5%.

conclusionDIC can impose a significant burden on septic patients and its presence can lead to higher mortality rates. Early detection through screening for DIC in septic patients can potentially reduce mortality. However, it is necessary to identify the most appropriate diagnostic criteria for each population, as various criteria have demonstrated different performance in different populations. Establishing a gold standard for each population can aid in accurate diagnosis of DIC.

Indexed as

Disseminated Intravascular CoagulationSepsisThrombosisAdultHemostasisHumansPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID38452037
PMCPMC10919643
OpenAlexW4392545022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.