Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition Change Is Not Necessarily Progress: Revision of the Sepsis Definition Should Be Based on New Scientific Insights.
作者信息
Cortés-Puch Irene, Hartog Christiane S
机构信息
1 Critical Care Medicine Department National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland.
2 Center for Sepsis Control and Care and.
出版信息
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 1;194(1):16-8. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0734ED.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition Change Is Not Necessarily Progress: Revision of the Sepsis Definition Should Be Based on New Scientific Insights.开启关于新的脓毒症定义变更的讨论未必是进步：脓毒症定义的修订应基于新的科学见解。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 1;194(1):16-8. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0734ED.
2
Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition Defining Sepsis: A Case of Bounded Rationality and Fuzzy Thinking?开启关于新脓毒症定义的辩论 定义脓毒症：是有限理性与模糊思维的案例吗？
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 1;194(1):14-5. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0879ED.
3
Potential Impact of the 2016 Consensus Definitions of Sepsis and Septic Shock on Future Sepsis Research.2016年脓毒症及脓毒性休克共识定义对未来脓毒症研究的潜在影响。
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Oct;70(4):553-561.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.007.
4
Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition. Medicare's Sepsis Reporting Program: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back.开启关于新脓毒症定义的讨论。医疗保险的脓毒症报告计划：前进两步，后退一步。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 15;194(2):139-41. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0723ED.
5
Opening the Debate on the New Sepsis Definition. Precision Medicine: An Opportunity to Improve Outcomes of Patients with Sepsis.开启关于新的脓毒症定义的讨论。精准医学：改善脓毒症患者预后的契机。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul 15;194(2):137-9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201604-0697ED.
6
Sepsis in heart transplant recipients: Is the new definition applicable?心脏移植受者的脓毒症：新定义适用吗？
Ann Card Anaesth. 2016 Oct-Dec;19(4):757. doi: 10.4103/0971-9784.191544.
7
Sepsis-3: What is the Meaning of a Definition?脓毒症-3：定义的意义是什么？
Crit Care Med. 2016 Aug;44(8):1459-60. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001983.
8
[History and definition of sepsis--do we need new terminology?].[脓毒症的历史与定义——我们是否需要新术语？]
Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 1996 Feb;31(1):9-14. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995860.
9
Should We Manage All Septic Patients Based on a Single Definition? An Alternative Approach.我们应该基于单一的定义来管理所有脓毒症患者吗？一种替代方法。
Crit Care Med. 2018 Feb;46(2):177-180. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002778.
10
The systemic inflammatory response, sepsis, and multiple organ dysfunction: new definitions for an old problem.全身炎症反应、脓毒症及多器官功能障碍：一个老问题的新定义
Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 1994 Jun;6(2):243-50.
引用本文的文献
1
Comparing the Predictive Value of SOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Early Hours of Hospitalization of Sepsis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.比较 SOFA 和 SIRS 在脓毒症患者住院早期对死亡率的预测价值：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Arch Iran Med. 2024 Aug 1;27(8):439-446. doi: 10.34172/aim.28567.
2
Patients with Bacterial Sepsis Are Heterogeneous with Regard to Their Systemic Lipidomic Profiles.患有细菌性脓毒症的患者在其全身脂质组学特征方面存在异质性。
Metabolites. 2022 Dec 29;13(1):52. doi: 10.3390/metabo13010052.
3
Validation of Sepsis-3 using survival analysis and clinical evaluation of quick SOFA, SIRS, and burn-specific SIRS for sepsis in burn patients with suspected infection.采用生存分析和对快速 SOFA、SIRS 和烧伤特异性 SIRS 进行临床评估，验证 Sepsis-3 在感染可疑烧伤患者中用于脓毒症的适用性。
PLoS One. 2023 Jan 3;18(1):e0276597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276597. eCollection 2023.
4
The Use of Different Sepsis Risk Stratification Tools on the Wards and in Emergency Departments Uncovers Different Mortality Risks: Results of the Three Welsh National Multicenter Point-Prevalence Studies.在病房和急诊科使用不同的脓毒症风险分层工具揭示了不同的死亡风险：三项威尔士全国多中心现况调查的结果
Crit Care Explor. 2021 Oct 21;3(10):e0558. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000558. eCollection 2021 Oct.
5
Development and internal validation of a simple prognostic score for early sepsis risk stratification in the emergency department.在急诊科开发和内部验证一种简单的预后评分，用于早期脓毒症风险分层。
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 7;11(7):e046009. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046009.
6
Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Sepsis Discharge Diagnosis Codes and Short Lengths of Stay in U.S. Hospitals.美国医院中出院诊断编码为脓毒症且住院时间较短患者的患病率及临床特征
Crit Care Explor. 2021 Mar 16;3(3):e0373. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000373. eCollection 2021 Mar.
7
Comparison of SOFA Score, SIRS, qSOFA, and qSOFA + L Criteria in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis.序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）评分、全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）、快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）及qSOFA+L标准在脓毒症诊断和预后中的比较
Eurasian J Med. 2021 Feb;53(1):40-47. doi: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2021.20081.
8
DeepAISE - An interpretable and recurrent neural survival model for early prediction of sepsis.深度人工智能败血症早期预测可解释和递归神经网络生存模型
Artif Intell Med. 2021 Mar;113:102036. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102036. Epub 2021 Feb 13.
9
A novel procalcitonin-based score for detecting sepsis among critically ill patients.一种新型降钙素原为基础的评分系统用于检测危重症患者脓毒症。
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 22;16(1):e0245748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245748. eCollection 2021.
10
Best diagnostic accuracy of sepsis combining SIRS criteria or qSOFA score with Procalcitonin and Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin outside ICU.在 ICU 外，SIRS 标准或 qSOFA 评分联合降钙素原和 Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin 对脓毒症具有最佳的诊断准确性。
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16605. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73676-y.
本文引用的文献
1
New Sepsis Criteria: A Change We Should Not Make.新的脓毒症标准：一项我们不应做出的改变。
Chest. 2016 May;149(5):1117-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.653. Epub 2016 Feb 27.
2
The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).《脓毒症及脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义（脓毒症-3）》
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
3
Developing a New Definition and Assessing New Clinical Criteria for Septic Shock: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).制定脓毒性休克的新定义并评估新的临床标准：用于第三次脓毒症和脓毒性休克国际共识定义（Sepsis-3）。
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775-87. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0289.
4
Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3).脓毒症临床标准评估：针对《脓毒症及脓毒性休克第三次国际共识定义》（Sepsis-3）。
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):762-74. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0288.
5
SEPSIS KILLS: early intervention saves lives.脓毒症夺命：早期干预可拯救生命。
Med J Aust. 2016 Feb 1;204(2):73. doi: 10.5694/mja15.00657.
6
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundles and outcome: results from the International Multicentre Prevalence Study on Sepsis (the IMPreSS study).拯救脓毒症运动捆绑治疗方案及其结局：国际脓毒症多中心流行率研究（IMPreSS 研究）的结果。
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1620-8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3906-y. Epub 2015 Jun 25.
7
Empiric antibiotic treatment reduces mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock from the first hour: results from a guideline-based performance improvement program.经验性抗生素治疗从第一小时起即可降低严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克的死亡率：基于指南的绩效改进项目结果
Crit Care Med. 2014 Aug;42(8):1749-55. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000330.
8
Novel therapies for septic shock over the past 4 decades.过去 40 年中用于感染性休克的新型治疗方法。
JAMA. 2011 Jul 13;306(2):194-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.909.
9
Strategies to reduce mortality from bacterial sepsis in adults in developing countries.降低发展中国家成人细菌性败血症死亡率的策略。
PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 19;5(8):e175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050175.
10
2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference.2001年危重病医学会/欧洲重症监护医学学会/美国胸科医师学会/美国胸科学会/危重病医学学会国际脓毒症定义会议。
Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr;31(4):1250-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000050454.01978.3B.
Zotero 插件