↓ Skip to main content

Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Early goal-directed therapy vs usual care in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11739-015-1248-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Maria Rusconi, Ilaria Bossi, James Geoffrey Lampard, Michael Szava-Kovats, Andrea Bellone, Eddy Lang

Abstract

Sepsis is a common and high-burden healthcare problem with a mortality exceeding 20 % in severe sepsis and nearly 50 % when septic shock is present. Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended by sepsis guidelines as the standard of care following a landmark study by Rivers et al. alongside other observational studies. Three recent randomized controlled trials have questioned the Rivers' results. The objective of our systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of EGDT in reducing the mortality of severe sepsis or septic shock. Relevant primary studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of EGDT for sepsis. Data from all trials were combined and analyzed using a random effects model. Five studies, enrolling a total of 4033 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the two treatment groups (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.77-1.11, P = 0.42), although moderate heterogeneity between studies was noted (I (2) = 48 %). A non-significant trend toward reduction in 60-day mortality in the EGDT group was noted (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.82-1.05, P = 0.22, I (2) = 24 %). Heterogeneity between trials precludes a definitive conclusion on the utility of EGDT in severe sepsis. Until further evidence is available, it is reasonable to consider EGDT in the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Other 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,038,832
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#360
of 1,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,375
of 279,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.