Cargando…
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis
OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8249046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34212256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z |
_version_ | 1783716829814849536 |
---|---|
author | Nunnally, Mark E. Ferrer, Ricard Martin, Greg S. Martin-Loeches, Ignacio Machado, Flavia R. De Backer, Daniel Coopersmith, Craig M. Deutschman, Clifford S. |
author_facet | Nunnally, Mark E. Ferrer, Ricard Martin, Greg S. Martin-Loeches, Ignacio Machado, Flavia R. De Backer, Daniel Coopersmith, Craig M. Deutschman, Clifford S. |
author_sort | Nunnally, Mark E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS: Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS: The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8249046 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82490462021-07-02 The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis Nunnally, Mark E. Ferrer, Ricard Martin, Greg S. Martin-Loeches, Ignacio Machado, Flavia R. De Backer, Daniel Coopersmith, Craig M. Deutschman, Clifford S. Intensive Care Med Exp Reviews OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS: Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS: The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care. Springer International Publishing 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8249046/ /pubmed/34212256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Reviews Nunnally, Mark E. Ferrer, Ricard Martin, Greg S. Martin-Loeches, Ignacio Machado, Flavia R. De Backer, Daniel Coopersmith, Craig M. Deutschman, Clifford S. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title | The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title_full | The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title_fullStr | The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title_full_unstemmed | The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title_short | The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
title_sort | surviving sepsis campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis |
topic | Reviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8249046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34212256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40635-021-00400-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nunnallymarke thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT ferrerricard thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT martingregs thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT martinloechesignacio thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT machadoflaviar thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT debackerdaniel thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT coopersmithcraigm thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT deutschmancliffords thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT thesurvivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT nunnallymarke survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT ferrerricard survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT martingregs survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT martinloechesignacio survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT machadoflaviar survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT debackerdaniel survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT coopersmithcraigm survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT deutschmancliffords survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis AT survivingsepsiscampaignresearchprioritiesfortheadministrationepidemiologyscoringandidentificationofsepsis |