Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38742536›Full record

SynthesisRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia2024

[Early source control of infection in patients seen in the emergency department: a systematic review].

A Julián-Jiménez, R Lorenzo Álvarez, V Gutiérrez Bueno, M Sánchez Trujillo, D Eduardo García

Abstract readEnglish AbstractSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Review
  2. Observational
  3. 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

5 authors.

A Julián-JiménezDr. Agustín Julián-Jiménez, MD, PhD. Servicio de Urgencias-Coordinador de Docencia, Formación, Investigación y Calidad. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo, Avda. Río Guadiana s/n. C.P: 45.071. Toledo. Spain. agustinj@sescam.jccm.es.
R Lorenzo Álvarez
V Gutiérrez Bueno
M Sánchez Trujillo
D Eduardo García

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe term source (or focus) control encompasses all those physical measures that can be used to reduce the inoculum and modify those factors in the infectious medium that promote microbial growth or foreign antimicrobial defenses of the host. The main objective of this systematic review (SR) is to know and compare whether early detection and control of the focus (in less than 6 hours) in adult patients treated in the ED for severe infection or sepsis, compared to not controlling the focus or delayed focus control (more than 12 hours) is more effective and safer (improves clinical evolution, mortality, complications, hospital stay or need for ICU admission).

methodsA systematic review is carried out following the PRISMA regulations in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Lilacs, Cochrane, Epistemonikos, Tripdatabase and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to December 31, 2023 without language restrictions and using a combination of MESH terms: "Source Control", "Early" "Infection OR Bacterial Infection OR Sepsis", "Emergencies OR Emergency OR Emergency Department" and "Adults". Observational cohort studies were included. No meta-analysis techniques were performed, but results were compared narratively.

resultsA total of 1,658 articles were identified, of which 2 that met the inclusion criteria and were classified as high quality were finally analyzed. The included studies represent a total of 2,404 patients with 678 cases in which an intervention was performed to control the focus (28.20%). In the first study, 28-day mortality was lower in patients who underwent an intervention to control the focus (12.3% vs. 22.5%; P <0.001), with an adjusted HR of 0.538 (95% CI: 0.389-0.744; P<0.001). In the second, it was demonstrated that the time elapsed from when the patient was evaluated for the first time and was hemodynamically stabilized, until the start of surgery was associated with his survival at 60 days with an OR of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.45; P <0.0001). In fact, for each hour of delay an adjusted OR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.16-0.47; P<0.0001) is established. So if the intervention is performed before 2 hours at 60 days, 98% of the patients are still alive, if it is performed between 2-4 hours it is reduced to 78%, if it is between 4-6 hours it drops to 55%, but if it is done for more than 6 hours there will be no survivors at 60 days.

conclusionsThis review shows that source control carried out after the evaluation of patients attending the ED reduces short-term mortality (30-60 days) and that it would be advisable to implement any required source control intervention as soon as possible, ideally early (within 6 hours).

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalSepsisBacterial InfectionsHumansInfection ControlLength of StayTime FactorsBacterial InfectionEarlyEmergency DepartmentSepsisSource control

Identifiers

PMID38742536
PMCPMC11231492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.