↓ Skip to main content

Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

6 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


20 Dimensions

Readers on

63 Mendeley
Surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for sepsis and septic shock
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5175-z
Pubmed ID

Craig M. Coopersmith, Daniel De Backer, Clifford S. Deutschman, Ricard Ferrer, Ishaq Lat, Flavia R. Machado, Greg S. Martin, Ignacio Martin-Loeches, Mark E. Nunnally, Massimo Antonelli, Laura E. Evans, Judith Hellman, Sameer Jog, Jozef Kesecioglu, Mitchell M. Levy, Andrew Rhodes


To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock. A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations. Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science. The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction? While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 24%
Other 14 22%
Student > Master 14 22%
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 54%
Unspecified 19 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Chemistry 3 5%
Other 12 19%

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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,325,587 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
of 3,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 267,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,325,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 267,543 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.