ArticleAnaesthesia2025
Top 10 research priorities for sepsis research determined by patients, carers and clinicians.
Article in Anaesthesia, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSepsis is a high burden syndrome associated with increased morbidity and mortality in both the acute and longer-term phases of illness. Multiple treatment uncertainties remain that require resolution through high-quality research. This study aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for sepsis research in the UK.
methodsWe conducted a priority setting partnership study co-produced by sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. This included five stages: initiation of steering group formation and confirmation of the scope of the priority setting partnership; identification of clinical uncertainties through an electronic survey; analysis and verification of uncertainties; interim prioritisation to the top 25 ranked questions; and final prioritisation to determine the top 10 research priorities, using the nominal group technique.
resultsOur initial survey respondents comprised 447/718 (62.3%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 218/718 (30.4%) clinicians; and 53/718 (7.1%) multiple/other roles who identified 53 distinct research uncertainties. Our interim prioritisation survey comprised 429/941 (45.8%) people who had survived sepsis, their friends and family members; 431/941 (46.0%) clinicians; and 73/941 (8.2%) multiple/other roles, with the top 25 ranked summary questions taken forwards for final prioritisation. From these, final workshop participants (n = 27) agreed a top 10 list of research priorities. Improved sepsis diagnosis; characterisation and management of the post-sepsis syndrome; and non-antibiotic treatment of sepsis were the top three priorities. DISCUSSION: We established priorities for sepsis research through a rigorous process of consensus involving sepsis survivors, carers and clinicians. These priorities will support future delivery of meaningful research to improve outcomes from 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.