• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Sepsis 3 and the burns patient: do we need Sepsis 3.1?

作者信息

Tridente Ascanio

机构信息

Intensive Care Unit, Whiston Hospital, St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington Road, Prescot L35 5DR, UK.

Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

Scars Burn Heal. 2018 Aug 14;4:2059513118790658. doi: 10.1177/2059513118790658. eCollection 2018 Jan-Dec.

DOI:10.1177/2059513118790658
PMID:30140449
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6096678/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Sepsis 3 and the burns patient: do we need Sepsis 3.1?脓毒症3与烧伤患者：我们需要脓毒症3.1吗？
Scars Burn Heal. 2018 Aug 14;4:2059513118790658. doi: 10.1177/2059513118790658. eCollection 2018 Jan-Dec.
2
Impact of different consensus definition criteria on sepsis diagnosis in a cohort of critically ill patients-Insights from a new mathematical probabilistic approach to mortality-based validation of sepsis criteria.不同共识定义标准对危重症患者脓毒症诊断的影响——基于新的数学概率方法对基于死亡率的脓毒症标准进行验证的见解。
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 8;15(9):e0238548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238548. eCollection 2020.
3
Validation of prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among cardiac-, thoracic-, and vascular-surgery patients admitted to a cardiothoracic intensive care unit.入住心胸重症监护病房的心脏、胸科和血管手术患者中，序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）评分、全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）标准及快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）评分对院内死亡率预后准确性的验证。
J Card Surg. 2020 Jan;35(1):118-127. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14331. Epub 2019 Nov 11.
4
Comparison of qSOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and SOFA Score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis.qSOFA 评分、SIRS 标准和 SOFA 评分在预测脓毒症患者死亡率方面的比较。
Ghana Med J. 2022 Sep;56(3):191-197. doi: 10.4314/gmj.v56i3.9.
5
Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）、快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）和全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）标准对血液系统癌症患者的预后评估准确性：一项回顾性多中心研究
J Intensive Care. 2019 Aug 7;7:41. doi: 10.1186/s40560-019-0396-y. eCollection 2019.
6
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.
7
A sirs-based automated alarm system for the diagnosis of sepsis after burn injury.一种基于全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）的烧伤后脓毒症诊断自动报警系统。
Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2017 Sep 30;30(3):177-184.
8
New sepsis definition changes incidence of sepsis in the intensive care unit.新的脓毒症定义改变了重症监护病房中脓毒症的发病率。
Crit Care Resusc. 2017 Mar;19(1):9-13.
9
[Diagnostic and prognostic value of procalcitonin and common inflammatory markers combining SOFA score in patients with sepsis in early stage].[降钙素原及常见炎症标志物联合序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）评分在脓毒症早期患者中的诊断及预后价值]
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2008 Jan;20(1):23-8.
10
Comparison of the performance of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS for predicting mortality and organ failure among sepsis patients admitted to the intensive care unit in a middle-income country.在一个中等收入国家，对入住重症监护病房的脓毒症患者，比较序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）、快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）和全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）在预测死亡率和器官衰竭方面的表现。
J Crit Care. 2018 Apr;44:156-160. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.10.023. Epub 2017 Oct 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Early wound excision within three days decreases risks of wound infection and death in burned patients.早期创伤切除可降低烧伤患者的伤口感染和死亡风险。
Burns. 2023 Dec;49(8):1816-1822. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2023.06.003. Epub 2023 Jun 15.
2
Application of Phagotherapy in the Treatment of Burn Patients (Review).噬菌疗法在烧伤患者治疗中的应用（综述）。
Sovrem Tekhnologii Med. 2021;12(3):95-103. doi: 10.17691/stm2020.12.3.12. Epub 2020 Jun 28.
3
Incidence and Time Point of Sepsis Detection as Related to Different Sepsis Definitions in Severely Burned Patients and Their Accompanying Time Course of Pro-Inflammatory Biomarkers.严重烧伤患者中脓毒症检测的发生率和时间点与不同脓毒症定义的关系及其促炎生物标志物的伴随时间进程
J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 23;11(8):701. doi: 10.3390/jpm11080701.
4
New Discoveries and Updates on Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions Presented at the 24th World Congress of Dermatology, Milan, Italy, 2019.2019年于意大利米兰举行的第24届世界皮肤病学大会上展示的皮肤药物不良反应的新发现与进展
Drug Saf. 2020 Feb;43(2):179-187. doi: 10.1007/s40264-019-00880-9.
5
Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA and SIRS criteria in hematological cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter study.序贯器官衰竭评估（SOFA）、快速序贯器官衰竭评估（qSOFA）和全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）标准对血液系统癌症患者的预后评估准确性：一项回顾性多中心研究
J Intensive Care. 2019 Aug 7;7:41. doi: 10.1186/s40560-019-0396-y. eCollection 2019.
6
International Abstracts.国际摘要。
Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2019 Mar 31;32(1):80-83.
7
Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience.欧洲伦理审批在危重病患者遗传流行病学研究中的方法学挑战：GenOSept 经验。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 May 7;20(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0370-1.

本文引用的文献

1
Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for postoperative risk stratification of critically ill patients with faecal peritonitis.粪便性腹膜炎重症患者术后风险分层预后模型的推导与验证
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Sep 12;7(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s13613-017-0314-1.
2
Sepsis in the burn patient: a different problem than sepsis in the general population.烧伤患者的脓毒症：与普通人群的脓毒症是不同的问题。
Burns Trauma. 2017 Aug 8;5:23. doi: 10.1186/s41038-017-0089-5. eCollection 2017.
3
Unavoidable Pressure Injuries, Terminal Ulceration, and Skin Failure: In Search of a Unifying Classification System.不可避免的压力性损伤、终末期溃疡和皮肤衰竭：寻找一个统一的分类系统。
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2017 May;30(5):200-202. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000515077.61418.44.
4
Characterizing Systemic Immune Dysfunction Syndrome to Fill in the Gaps of SEPSIS-2 and SEPSIS-3 Definitions.表征全身免疫功能障碍综合征以填补脓毒症-2和脓毒症-3定义的空白。
Chest. 2017 Feb;151(2):518-519. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.047.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
Gastrointestinal failure in the ICU.重症监护病房的胃肠衰竭。
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016 Apr;22(2):128-41. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000286.
9
Standardised mortality ratio based on the sum of age and percentage total body surface area burned is an adequate quality indicator in burn care: An exploratory review.基于年龄与烧伤体表面积百分比总和的标准化死亡率是烧伤护理中一项充分的质量指标：一项探索性综述。
Burns. 2016 Feb;42(1):28-40. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2015.10.032. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
10
Variants in the Mannose-binding Lectin Gene MBL2 do not Associate With Sepsis Susceptibility or Survival in a Large European Cohort.甘露糖结合凝集素基因MBL2的变异与欧洲一个大型队列中的脓毒症易感性或生存率无关。
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Sep 1;61(5):695-703. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ378. Epub 2015 May 12.