ArticlePloS one2025
Insights of red cell distribution width for mortality in septic patients with diabetes mellitus: A multicenter cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The correlation between red cell distribution width (RDW)and mortality in septic patients with diabetes mellitus has not been extensively investigated. This study aimed to explore the correlation between RDW and mortality and potential value of RDW as a prognostic indicator in septic patients with diabetes mellitus. A total of 5476 septic patients with diabetes mellitus were included in this multicenter retrospective cohort study. Multivariate logistic regression, dose-response, and mediation analyses were conducted to examine the association between RDW and mortality in septic patients with diabetes mellitus. The predictive value of RDW was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis. The improvement in the model was assessed using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). After adjusting for all confounders, RDW was an independent variable for mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26, 1.50, per standard deviation in RDW, P < 0.001). Moreover, RDW was positively correlated with 28-day mortality in a non-linear manner. The contribution of the predictive value of RDW was substantial in the ROC curve and SHAP analyses. The addition of RDW improved the predictive performance of the baseline model (continuous NRI [95% CI], 0.284 (0.188, 0.379); P < 0.001; IDI [95% CI], 0.012 (0.007, 0.016); P < 0.001). In conclusion, RDW may be a valuable indicator for predicting risk stratification and outcomes in septic patients with diabetes mellitus.
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.