MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389193932 · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04750-w

Prognostic differences in sepsis caused by gram-negative bacteria and gram-positive bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389193932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A-ling Tang, Yi Shi, Qingqing Dong, Sihui Wang, Yao Ge, Chenyan Wang, Zhimin Gong, Weizhen Zhang, Wei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineProcalcitoninMeta-analysisSepsisInternal medicineCochrane LibraryPublication biasFunnel plotSubgroup analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207