Observational studyScientific reports2025
Subcutaneous interstitial pressure measurement during early septic shock: an exploratory study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Glycocalyx Shedding to Microvascular Collapse in Sepsis: Endothelial Pathophysiology, Organ Dysfunction, and Mechanistic Biomarkers.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluid therapy is crucial in managing septic shock but may result in harmful fluid overload due to capillary leakage, causing interstitial fluid accumulation. Burns and endotoxemia models demonstrate that interstitium can reduce its hydrostatic pressure, increasing permeability, but this has not been clinically investigated in human sepsis. This study aimed to examine the changes in subcutaneous interstitial pressure (SIP) during sepsis. This prospective observational study involved adult patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) within 24 h, under sedation and mechanical ventilation, and who received < 50 ml/kg resuscitation. The septic shock group met the septic shock criteria, whereas the control group lacked sepsis or shock criteria (admission for non-traumatic coma). The SIP was measured using a subcutaneous transducer-tip probe. SIP was measured in 30 patients and was not significantly lower in septic shock: 1.69 ± 2.99 vs. 2.51 ± 2.39 mmHg in controls (p = 0.410). Among the 6 patients with a negative SIP, all but one were in the septic shock group, although the absolute difference was not significant (5 (33%) vs. 1 (7%), p = 0.169). Subcutaneous interstitial pressure was not significantly lower in septic shock patients, but sub-atmospheric SIP was more prevalent in this group, despite higher fluid balance. Further studies are required to clarify the role of interstitial pressure in capillary leakage during 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.