Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41095771›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

The Burden of Sepsis and Septic Shock in the Intensive Care Unit.

Luigi La Via, Antonino Maniaci, Mario Lentini, Giuseppe Cuttone, Salvatore Ronsivalle, Simona Tutino, Francesca Maria Rubulotta, Giuseppe Nunnari, Andrea Marino

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Hospital Cost Components and Predictors inTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Clarithromycin for treating sepsis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Luigi La ViaDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95123 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2156-7554
Antonino ManiaciDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Enna "Kore", 94100 Enna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1251-0185
Mario LentiniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Enna "Kore", 94100 Enna, Italy.ORCID 0009-0004-8127-5045
Giuseppe CuttoneAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, 'Abele Ajello' Hospital, ASP Trapani, 91026 Mazara del Vallo, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-5271-1810
Salvatore RonsivalleDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Enna "Kore", 94100 Enna, Italy.
Simona TutinoDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Hospital "Giovanni Paolo II", ASP 7, 97100 Ragusa, Italy.
Francesca Maria RubulottaDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", 95123 Catania, Italy.
Giuseppe NunnariUnit of Infectious Diseases, ARNAS Garibaldi Hospital, 95122 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8113-8452
Andrea MarinoUnit of Infectious Diseases, ARNAS Garibaldi Hospital, 95122 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5650-6911

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This narrative review synthesizes our current understanding of sepsis and septic shock burden in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Based on a comprehensive but non-systematic literature search from 2000 to 2025, this review synthesizes our current understanding across eight key domains: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostics, management strategies, long-term outcomes, disparities, and future directions. The global burden of sepsis, especially in the developed and developing world, is great: over 48 million cases per year, with mortality rates at the ICU level in the range of 30 to 50%, depending on geography and resources. The pathophysiological progression from an initial hyper-inflammatory state to immune paralysis underlies organ failure and complicates therapeutic targeting. Diagnostic approaches, including clinical scoring systems, biomarkers (e.g., procalcitonin, MR-proADM), and emerging AI tools, offer improved early detection but face challenges in reliability and accessibility. Management in the ICU remains anchored in timely antimicrobial administration, hemodynamic stabilization with balanced fluids and vasopressors, source control, and organ support, including lung-protective ventilation and kidney replacement therapy. Novel adjuncts, such as immunomodulators and extracorporeal therapies, show promise but demand further validation. Importantly, survivors face significant long-term sequelae-post-intensive care syndrome (PICS)-encompassing physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, which require structured rehabilitation and follow-up. The future of sepsis care lies in integrating precision medicine-through molecular diagnostics, individualized immunotherapy, and AI-supported monitoring-with scalable, equitable implementation strategies that bridge the gap between high- and low-income settings. Addressing disparities and expanding rehabilitation services are essential to improving survival and long-term quality of life in sepsis survivors.

Indexed as

critical carediagnosisICUintensive care unitmanagementpost-intensive care syndromesepsisseptic shock

Identifiers

PMID41095771
PMCPMC12525046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.