Impact of Statins in Outcomes of Septic Patients: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pleiotropic effects of statins have prompted considerable research in fields other than cardiovascular disease. We reviewed the literature aiming to summarize and critically evaluate the current evidence about the potential use of statins in sepsis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Pubmed, SciELO, and Cochrane electronic databases from inception through November 1, 2013, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that examined the association between statin use (upon hospital admission or previous users) and the risk or outcome of sepsis. Data on study characteristics, measurement of statin use, and outcomes (adjusted for potential confounders) were extracted. We structured our review according to the Principles of Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Quality assessment of cohort studies was performed using the Ottawa-Newcastle Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three cohort studies and 5 RCTs were eligible, comprising 42 549 statin users and 54 201 non-statin users, from 1995 to 2013. The populations included varied from patients admitted to general wards or intensive care units with bacterial infections, community-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacteremia, or sepsis, to outpatients with chronic kidney disease or established cardiovascular disease. Overall, 16 studies reported a benefit from statin use in morbidity or mortality outcomes (range of adjusted odds ratio, 0.06-0.62; α = 0.05). The remaining 12 studies found no protective effect associated with statin use upon hospital admission or previous users. Among the 5 RCTs, none demonstrated a reduction in mortality. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of statins in patients with sepsis, as the existing studies failed to prove a consistent mortality benefit. More clinical trials are warranted to provide more conclusive knowledge and ultimately change clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it