ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Sepsis research in Canada: An environmental scan of sepsis investigators, research, and funding.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is the world's second leading cause of mortality. In 2017, the World Health Assembly declared sepsis a global priority and adopted a resolution prompting member states to improve the prevention, recognition, and management of sepsis. This cross-sectional study examines the sepsis research landscape in Canada, including demographics, scope, and funding. Using convenient sampling, sepsis researchers in Canada were asked to complete an online 20-question survey. We also scanned the CIHR funding database from 2012-2022 to quantify national research dollars spent on sepsis-related projects. Quantitative data was summarized using descriptive statistics, and textual descriptions of current sepsis research activities were analyzed thematically. With a response rate of 46% (69 of the 150), respondents were primarily men (n = 46/69, 67%), who identified as White/European (n = 49/69, 71%), and were professors or clinical professors (n = 36/69, 52%). The predominant areas of research focus were identification of sepsis (n = 21/55, 38%) and treatment/management (29/55, 53%) of sepsis, while sepsis prevention (n = 4/55, 7%) and sepsis education (n = 5/55, 9%) garnered less attention. Past 10 years of CIHR funding data revealed that only 0.7% ($85 million) of total funding ($11 billion) was towards sepsis research, of which only 2 were new-investigator awards. This study illustrates the need for improving the diversity of sepsis researchers in Canada; expanding the scope of research to address sepsis prevention, recovery, and education; and increasing overall funding to sepsis.
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.