ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Sepsis in elderly patients: investigation of prognostic factors in a secondary healthcare facility.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and Long-Term Mortality in Sepsis: Evidence from a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study of 13,994 Hospitalizations in the Abruzzo Region, Central Italy.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Elderly patients with healthcare-associated infections in the emergency department: clinical characteristics and risk factors for septic shock: a retrospective study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Article
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
aimTo evaluate risk factors affecting the prognosis of sepsis in elderly patients.
methodThe study was conducted retrospectively in a secondary healthcare institution between 2016 and 2023. Elderly patients (> 65 years) admitted with sepsis were included. Demographic data, laboratory parameters on the day of diagnosis, sepsis origin, causative microorganisms, and mortality on the 28th day were recorded.
resultsA total of 179 elderly patients were included. The median age was 82 and 44% were male. The mortality rate was 49% on the 28th day. Hypertension was more common in the non-survived patients. Blood urea nitrogen (OR 1.03 (1.00-1.05) p = 0.007), and albumin (OR 0.26 (0.10-0.62) p = 0.003), levels were a predictor of mortality at the time of the admission. In the non-survived patients, Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment scores were higher at the time of sepsis diagnosis (p < 0.001). The rate of septic shock (79.5% vs. 33%), intensive care unit (99% vs. 90%), mechanical ventilation (87.5% vs. 55%), and vasopressor needs (55% vs. 27.5%) were significantly higher in the non-survived patients. The rate of bacteremia was found to be higher in the non-survived patient group (26%) than in the survivors (13.2%). The rate of Gram-negative microorganisms was significantly higher in the non-survived patient group than in the survivors (63% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). The most frequently isolated bacteria were Klebsiella pneumoniae (33%) in blood culture; it was Escherichia coli (35%) in urine cultures and Acinetobacter baumanii (40%) in sputum cultures. On the 3-5th day of treatment, the clinical response rate was lower in the non-survived patient group (29%) than in the surviving's (53%) (p = 0.001). The most important determinants for the mortality were hypertension (OR 2.39 (1.25-4.95) p = 0.019), SIRS score (OR 1.86 (1.32-2.61) p < 0.001) and Gram-negative bacteria sepsis (OR 2.53 (1.22-5.22), p = 0.012).
conclusionThe number and the proportion of the elderly population is increasing worldwide, and sepsis is one of the most common causes of death in elderly patients. Knowing the poor prognostic factors is important for early treatment and to reduce mortality.
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.