↓ Skip to main content

Residual rates of mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a fatality or a new challenge?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Residual rates of mortality in patients with severe sepsis: a fatality or a new challenge?
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Asfar, Yann-Erick Claessens, Jacques Duranteau, Eric Kipnis, Marc Leone, Bruno Lévy, Jean-Paul Mira

Abstract

Phase III clinical trials on severe sepsis and septic shock published during the past decade have failed to reveal the superiority of any therapeutic intervention on mortality compared with evolving standards of care, with the exception of the Early-Goal Directed Therapy reported in 2001. This viewpoint paper presents an analysis of these studies in order to understand what lessons can be learned and proposes perspectives for future study designs. A total of 102 studies were selected among clinical trials published in the field of severe sepsis and septic shock from 2001 to 2013, based on the assessment of a therapeutic intervention and mortality as an outcome. Studies were further selected according to randomized, controlled trial (RCT) quality criteria and analysed according to reported data. Most (n = 61) were excluded because they did not comply with RCT quality criteria or did not report inclusion criteria or patient severity (n = 22). The 19 remaining studies were categorized into three groups depending on whether the intervention assessed led to better, worse, or equivalent outcomes. It appears that the mortality rate in the control arm, ranging from 17% to 61%, impacted the results, with a benefit reported in the studies with the highest rates. Both heterogeneous studied populations and uncontrolled diversity of care among participating centres probably contributed to discrepancies between studies assessing the same intervention. The new challenge to enhance the probability of decreasing mortality rates should include a more appropriate definition of sepsis based on more specific criteria involving biomarker use and accurate patient phenotypes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 9%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#14,429,961
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#760
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,123
of 200,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 200,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.