↓ Skip to main content

Early goal-directed resuscitation for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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 resuscitation for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0214-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-bing Jiang, Mao Zhang, Shou-yin Jiang, Yue-feng MA

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore whether early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) was associated with a lower mortality rate in comparison to usual care in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and a Chinese database (SinoMed) were searched systematically to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing standard EGDT with usual care in resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock and the search time could date back to the publication of the study by Rivers in 2001. The study selection, data extraction and methodological evaluation were performed by two investigators independently. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The present meta-analysis had been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015017667). Our meta-analysis identified 6 studies and enrolling 4336 patients. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups, and the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.83 (95 % confident interval, CI, 0.64-1.08) with significant heterogeneity (p = 0.02, I(2) = 64 %). However, the pooled OR of 3 multicenter RCTs was 1.03 (95 % CI, 0.89-1.21) with no heterogeneity (p = 0.78, I(2) = 0 %). The effects of EGDT on length of stay in the emergency department and intensive care unit were uncertain, and there was no effect of EGDT on hospital length of stay. There were no differences of mechanical ventilation rate and renal replacement therapy rate between the two groups, and patients in the EGDT group were more admitted in ICU than patients in the control group. During the early 6-h intervention period, patients in the EGDT group received more intravenous fluids, had a higher vasopressor usage rate, higher dobutamine usage rate and higher blood transfusion rate, than patients in the control group. Finally, there was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups, and the pooled OR was 1.06 (95%CI 0.80-1.39) with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 62 %, p = 0.07). Our meta-analysis showed that the application of EGDT was not associated with lower mortality rate currently. However it does not mean that it is useless of EGDT in patients with sever sepsis and septic shock. On the contrary, there was no difference in mortality rate between the two groups may be due to the improvement of therapeutic strategies in these patients. And the results may be related to the different compliance rate of EGDT resuscitation bundle. The current evidence does not support the significant advantage of Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) in the resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 24%
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 20 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,363,484
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#554
of 1,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,620
of 298,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#16
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 298,772 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 68% of its contemporaries.