ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Infrastructure and current practice of blood culture diagnostics in patients with sepsis: teachings and recommendations from the European Sepsis Care Survey.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors associated with apyrexia during bacteraemia: a prospective multicenter cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- ASP-COMPLEX: redefining antimicrobial stewardship to improve outcomes in high-risk patients with severe infections.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe recently published European Sepsis Care Survey (ESCS) by the European Sepsis Alliance (ESA) showed that the standard-of-care strategies regarding infrastructure and logistics on diagnosis and management of sepsis were beyond what is considered satisfactory. This led to a position statement by the Steering Committee of the ESA.
methodsA literature search was conducted to compare the compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines and/or other medical societies reported by the health care practitioners participating in the ESCS regarding first line fluids and vasopressors, biomarkers, continuous availability for microbiology service and antibiotic stewardship team.
resultsIn all suggested practices for sepsis care the feedback of the health-care professionals who completed the ESCS showed that the average adherence was more than 80% with two exceptions: availability of microbiology diagnosis limited to 10% and antibiotic stewardship for the selection of the most appropriate antibiotic limited to 65%.
conclusionsESA suggests that quality measures are applied across Europe towards the implementation of bundles for early sepsis recognition, antibiotic stewardship for sepsis patients and availability of a continuous microbiology service on a 24-hour basis including weekends for timely diagnosis.
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.