↓ Skip to main content

The effect of goal-directed therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis - earlier is better: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2014
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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of goal-directed therapy on mortality in patients with sepsis - earlier is better: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0570-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wan-Jie Gu, Fei Wang, Jan Bakker, Lu Tang, Jing-Chen Liu

Abstract

IntroductionThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend goal-directed therapy (GDT) for the early resuscitation of patients with sepsis. However, the findings of the ProCESS (Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock) trial show no benefit from GDT for reducing mortality rates in early septic shock. We performed a meta-analysis to integrate these findings with existing literature on this topic and evaluate the effect of GDT on mortality from sepsis.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and reference lists of articles. Randomized controlled trials comparing GDT with standard therapy or usual care in patients with sepsis were included. The prespecified primary outcome was overall mortality.ResultsIn total, 13 trials involving 2,525 adult patients were included. GDT significantly reduced overall mortality in the random-effect model (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.96, P =0.01, I2¿=¿56%). Predefined subgroup analysis according to the timing of GDT for resuscitation suggested that mortality benefit was seen only in the subgroup of early GDT within the first six hours (seven trials; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.89, P =0.0004, I2¿=¿40%) but not in the subgroup with a late or unclear timing of GDT (six trials; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24, P =0.59, I2¿=¿56%). GDT was significantly associated with the use of dobutamine (five trials; RR 2.71, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.10, P =0.02).ConclusionsThe current meta-analysis suggests that GDT significantly reduces overall mortality in patients with sepsis, especially when initiated early. However, due to the variable quality of the studies, strong and definitive recommendations can not be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Other 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 38 28%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 21 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,238,302
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,583
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,367
of 272,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 272,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.