Prognostic differences in sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria and gram-positive bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacteria are the main pathogens that cause sepsis. The pathogenic mechanisms of sepsis caused by gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria are completely different, and their prognostic differences in sepsis remain unclear. METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for Chinese and English studies (January 2003 to September 2023). Observational studies involving gram-negative (G (-))/gram-positive (G (+)) bacterial infection and the prognosis of sepsis were included. The stability of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots and Egger tests were used to check whether there was publication bias. A meta-regression analysis was conducted on the results with high heterogeneity to identify the source of heterogeneity. A total of 6949 articles were retrieved from the database, and 45 studies involving 5586 subjects were included after screening according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-seven high-quality studies and 18 moderate-quality studies were identified according to the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale score. There was no significant difference in the survival rate of sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria and G (+) bacteria (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70-1.28). Subgroup analysis according to survival follow-up time showed no significant difference. The serum concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI 0.02-0.76), procalcitonin (SMD = 1.95, 95% CI 1.32-2.59) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) (MD = 0.31, 95% CI 0.25-0.38) in the G (-) bacterial infection group were significantly higher than those in the G (+) bacterial infection group, but there was no significant difference in IL-6 (SMD = 1.33, 95% CI - 0.18-2.84) and WBC count (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.96-00.66). There were no significant differences between G (-) and G (+) bacteria in D dimer level, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, international normalized ratio, platelet count, length of stay or length of ICU stay. Sensitivity analysis of the above results indicated that the results were stable. CONCLUSION: The incidence of severe sepsis and the concentrations of inflammatory factors (CRP, PCT, TNF-α) in sepsis caused by G (-) bacteria were higher than those caused by G (+) bacteria. The two groups had no significant difference in survival rate, coagulation function, or hospital stay. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42023465051).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".