ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2025
Sepsis in liver failure patients: Diagnostic challenges and recent advancements.
Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Tipping Point: Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure and End-Stage Liver Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Novel Insights on Clinical Outcomes Using Integrated Shotgun Metagenomic Profiling of the Gut Microbiome, Resistome, and Host Immune-Inflammatory Response in Hospitalized Patients with Decompensated Cirrhosis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Longitudinal biomarker trajectories and their prognostic utility for 21-day mortality in burn patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Development and validation of QuadraSynth ML: a novel classifier for sepsis prediction.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Sepsis in end-stage liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure: pathophysiology, diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological management.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Sepsis and the Liver.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic LF (ACLF) are prevalent hepatic emergencies characterized by an increased susceptibility to bacterial infections (BI), despite significant systemic inflammation. Literature indicates that 30%-80% of ALF patients and 55%-81% of ACLF patients develop BI, attributed to immunological dysregulation. Bacterial sepsis in these patients is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including prolonged hospitalization and increased mortality. Early detection of bacterial sepsis is critical; however, distinguishing between sterile systemic inflammation and sepsis poses a significant challenge due to the overlapping clinical presentations of LF and sepsis. Conventional sepsis biomarkers, such as procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, have shown limited utility in LF patients due to inconsistent results. In contrast, novel biomarkers like presepsin and sTREM-1 have demonstrated promising discriminatory performance in this population, pending further validation. Moreover, emerging research highlights the potential of machine learning-based approaches to enhance sepsis detection and characterization. Although preliminary findings are encouraging, further studies are necessary to validate these results across diverse patient cohorts, including those with LF. This article provides a comprehensive review of the magnitude, impact, and diagnostic challenges associated with BI in LF patients, focusing on novel advancements in early sepsis detection and characterization.
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.