ArticleJournal of clinical practice and research2024
Evaluation of Clinical Course and Outcomes of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Elderly Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical practice and research, 2024. 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.
- Elderly patients with healthcare-associated infections in the emergency department: clinical characteristics and risk factors for septic shock: a retrospective study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Gut microbiota and sepsis: mechanisms, clinical correlations, and therapeutic prospects.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Sepsis: An Overview of Current Therapies and Future Research.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Our objective was to prospectively evaluate patients with sepsis and septic shock in terms of their clinical course, laboratory findings, risk factors, treatment options, and prognosis. We also compared data among the elderly (≥65 years) and non-elderly (<65 years) patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Materials and Methods: The study was a single-center prospective observational study conducted between 2014 and 2017. All adult patients with sepsis and septic shock hospitalized in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and Infectious Diseases Department were included in the study. Results: This analysis included 250 patients admitted with severe sepsis or septic shock. Elderly patients accounted for 60.0% (150/250) of the patients. In logistic regression analyses of risk factors, elderly patients with sepsis and septic shock were more likely to have a higher odds ratios (ORs) for smoking (OR=3.658 [1.988-13.538], p=0.050), medication use (OR=5.365 [1.943-30.524], p=0.048), underlying diseases (OR=2.023 [1.333-12.292], p<0.001), hyperglycemia (OR=14.448 [2.690-77.612], p=0.002), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (OR=293.998 [2.247-53.713], p=0.001), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (OR=1.301 [1.057-1.600], p=0.013). Conversely, non-elderly patients with sepsis and septic shock were more likely to have higher ORs for body mass index (BMI) (OR=0.789 [0.700-0.911], p=0.001), chronic renal failure (OR=37.076 [5.374-255.811], p<0.001), hematological malignancy (OR=84.348 [10.661-667.375], p<0.001), and leucopenia (OR=86.374 [6.622-1126.577], p=0.001). Conclusion: Elderly patients with sepsis and septic shock are more susceptible to multiple organ failure. While sepsis was not associated with increased mortality in this study, targeted early interventions may be effective in reducing mortality in older patients and in managing chronic diseases.
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.