ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024
Culture-negative sepsis may be a different entity from culture-positive sepsis: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Features and 1-Year Prognosis of Patients with Suspected Sepsis and Positive Blood Cultures in the Emergency Department: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Article
- Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease After Deceased-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Likelihood of Blood Culture Positivity Using SeptiCyte RAPID.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of ddPCR panel implementation on optimizing antimicrobial therapy management in critically ill patients with bloodstream infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Likelihood of blood culture positivity using SeptiCyte RAPID.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Impact of Respiratory Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) on Antibiotic Stewardship: A Real-World Experience.Cureus · 2025Article
- Pulmonary pathology in culture-negative sepsis: a potential confounder for sepsis treatment and research.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- The elusive concept of appropriate antibiotic for septic patients when a pathogen is not detected by standard culture methods.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Editorial: Infections in the intensive care unit, volume II.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)-derived AAGC Model for In-hospital Mortality Prediction in Sepsis Incorporating Age, APACHE II Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Creatinine: A Prospective Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe distinction between culture-positive sepsis and culture-negative sepsis regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes remains contentious. We aimed to elucidate these differences using large-scale nationwide data.
methodsThis prospective cohort study analyzed data from the Korean Sepsis Alliance registry, comprising 21 intensive care units (ICUs) across 20 hospitals from September 2019 to December 2021. Patients meeting the Sepsis-3 criteria were included.
resultsAmong 11,981 sepsis patients, 3501 were analyzed, all of whom were referred to the ICU through the emergency department (mean age: 72 ± 13 years; 1976 [56%] males). Of these, 2213 (63%) were culture-positive sepsis and 1288 (37%) were culture-negative sepsis. Compared to the culture-positive sepsis group, the culture-negative sepsis group exhibited less severe illness, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less deteriorated vital signs. While pulmonary-origin sepsis was common in both groups, culture-negative patients primarily presented with pulmonary infections and had a higher incidence of respiratory failure. In comparison to the culture-positive sepsis group, blood cultures and the administration of empirical antibiotics were performed less promptly in the culture-negative sepsis group. Patients with culture-negative sepsis also showed lower compliance with fluid resuscitation (98.4% vs. 96.9%, p = 0.038; culture-positive sepsis vs. culture-negative sepsis) and received vasopressors earlier (31.1% vs. 35.9%, p = 0.012). In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (31.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.073); however, in patients with septic shock, culture-negative sepsis had higher mortality rates (37.6% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.029). The apparent appropriateness of empirical antibiotics in the culture-negative septic shock was higher than that of the culture-positive septic shock (85.2% vs. 96.8%, p < 0.001). Culture-negativity independently predicted poor prognosis in septic shock patients (OR: 1.462, 95% CI [1.060-2.017], p = 0.021).
conclusionIn patients with septic shock, culture-negativity was associated with increased mortality, despite the paradoxically higher appropriateness of empirical antibiotics than culture-positive patients. These contradictory findings suggest that the current criteria for determining the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy may not be valid for culture-negative sepsis.
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.