ReviewInfection2026
From early recognition to precision medicine: advances in the diagnosis and management of adult sepsis and septic shock-a narrative review.
Review in Infection, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEmerging diagnostic, computational, and precision approaches are expanding the ability to detect, classify, and biologically characterise sepsis, but their translation into clinical benefit depends on whether added information changes management and, ultimately, improves patient-centred outcomes. This review evaluates selected advances in adult sepsis and septic shock through a framework of clinical actionability.
methodsA focused PubMed search was supplemented by major international guidelines, targeted searches, and reference-list screening through August 2026. Priority was given to randomised trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, multicentre studies, and prospective or external validation studies relevant to clinical implementation.
resultsWe developed a two-gap framework to distinguish gains in information from clinically meaningful translation. The information-to-action gap describes situations in which improved detection, prediction, biological classification, or physiological assessment does not alter management; the decision-to-outcome gap describes management changes without demonstrated patient-centred benefit. Digital alerts, rapid diagnostics, host-response assays, physiology-guided resuscitation, and phenotype- or biomarker-guided strategies show differing degrees of actionability. Across these domains, reproducibility, transportability, workflow integration, timing, temporal stability, and treatment-predictive validity remain key constraints.
conclusionMost of the emerging diagnostic, computational, and precision approaches reviewed here have not yet established a routine role in sepsis care. Established evidence-based management therefore remains the clinical foundation, while newer strategies should be evaluated prospectively for their ability to close the information-to-action and decision-to-outcome gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873459What 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.