↓ Skip to main content

Early goal-directed therapy in the management of severe sepsis or septic shock in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Early goal-directed therapy in the management of severe sepsis or septic shock in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0312-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ling Zhang, Guijun Zhu, Li Han, Ping Fu

Abstract

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines have proposed early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) as a key strategy to decrease mortality among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. However, its effectiveness is uncertain. We searched for relevant studies in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and a Chinese database (SinoMed), as well as relevant references from January 1966 to October 2014. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EGDT for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were length of ICU and in-hospital stay, mechanical ventilation support, vasopressor and inotropic agents support, fluid administration, and red cell transfusion. We pooled relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using Review Manager 5.2. We included 10 RCTs from 2001 to 2014 involving 4,157 patients. Pooled analyses of all studies showed no significant difference in mortality between the EGDT and the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.04, P = 0.17), with substantial heterogeneity (χ2 = 23.65, I (2) = 58%). In the subgroup analysis, standard EGDT, but not modified EGDT, was associated with lower mortality rate in comparison with the usual care group (RR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03). However, EGDT was associated with a higher mortality rate in comparison with the early lactate clearance group (RR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.06 to 2.18, P = 0.02). In the first 6 h, compared with usual care, patients in EGDT received more inotropic agents (P = 0.04), fluid administration (P = 0.05), and red cell transfusion (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of ICU stay (P = 0.73) or in-hospital stay (P = 0.57), ventilation rate (P = 0.53), and vasopressor support (P = 0.63). EGDT was not associated with a survival benefit among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Instead, EGDT was associated with a higher mortality rate in comparison to the early lactate clearance group. Further high-quality RCTs comparing EGDT with early lactate clearance are desirable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 153 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Other 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 45 28%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 25 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,994,193
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,336
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,784
of 264,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#40
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. 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 264,242 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 52% of its contemporaries.