ReviewCureus2024
Tools for Screening, Predicting, and Evaluating Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- The prognostic value of CT-quantified visceral and subcutaneous fat areas in sepsis.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting Cardiovascular Collapse in Critically Ill Patients During Intubation Induction: A Prospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- The prognostic value of red cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio for 28-day mortality in sepsis patients: a multicenter analysis based on the eICU Collaborative Research Database.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Improving Sepsis Mortality Prediction With Machine Learning Using Full Region Synthetic Sampling Approach.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Diagnostic values of noradrenaline administered dose, procalcitonin (PCT) and blood lactic acid for septic shock.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is characterized by life-threatening organ dysfunction due to dysregulated host response to infection. It can progress to cause circulatory and cellular/metabolic abnormalities, resulting in septic shock that may significantly increase mortality. The pathophysiology of sepsis involves a complex interplay of invading pathogens and the body's immune defense, causing alteration in normal homeostasis, eventually leading to derangements in the cellular, humoral, circulatory, and metabolic functions. Several scoring systems have been developed to rapidly predict or suspect sepsis, such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), modified SOFA (mSOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), shock index (SI), and modified SI (mSI). Each of these scores has been utilized for triaging patients with sepsis, and as per medical advancements these scoring systems have been modified to include or exclude certain criteria to improve their clinical utility. This review aims to compare the individual scores and their usage for sepsis that may be used for laying the foundation for early recognition and prediction of sepsis and for formulating more precise definitions in the future.
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.