The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Gram-positive sepsis: Does it fundamentally differ from Gram-negative bacterial sepsis?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the basic differences between gram-positive and gram-negative sepsis and to assess the effect of these differences on current and future therapeutic strategies for sepsis. DESIGN: Literature review of the past 30 yrs of laboratory and clinical reports that analyze the microbial aspects of sepsis and the immunologic response to systemic infection. RESULTS: The increasing prevalence of sepsis from gram-positive bacterial pathogens necessitates reevaluation of many of the basic assumptions about the molecular pathogenesis of septic shock. It has been assumed that the initiation of the systemic inflammatory response with activation of the proinflammatory cytokine networks and other mediators results in a similar pathophysiologic process, regardless of the causative microbic pathogen. Yet, there is increasing experimental evidence that fundamental differences exist in the host response to gram-positive bacterial pathogens compared with the host response to gram-negative organisms. Systemic immune activation during sepsis may promote the clearance of the microbic pathogen; however, generalized inflammation also contributes to the pathogenesis of septic shock. The balance between these beneficial and deleterious effects may differ between gram-positive and gram-negative pathogens. CONCLUSIONS: Results of antimediator therapies in clinical trials in septic shock are inconclusive but suggest that the response may differ, depending on the type of microbic pathogen. The immune-mediated pathophysiologic mechanisms that underlie gram-positive sepsis and the potential interactions between the infecting microorganism and efficacy of anticytokine therapies require further investigation. Treatment strategies that explain the causative organism may be necessary for optimal use of immunoadjuvants in the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Receptor-Dependent Mechanisms of Cell Stimulation by Bacterial Endotoxin
Ulevitch, R. J., & Tobias, P. S. (1995) · Annual Review of Immunology · doi:10.1146/annurev.iy.13.040195.002253 · Cited by 1,442
Shock and Multiple-Organ Dysfunction after Self-Administration of Salmonella Endotoxin
da Silva, A. M. T., Kaulbach, H. C., Chuidian, F. S., Lambert, D. R., Suffredini, A. F., & Danner, R. L. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199305203282005 · Cited by 276
Cited by
Epidemiology of sepsis: an update
Angus, D. C., & Wax, R. S. (2001) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-200107001-00035 · Cited by 813
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of TAK-242 for the treatment of severe sepsis*
Rice, T. W., Wheeler, A. P., Bernard, G. R., Vincent, J.-L., Angus, D. C., Aikawa, N., Demeyer, I., Sainati, S., Amlot, N., Cao, C., et al. (2010) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181e7c5c9 · Cited by 512
Self-citationThe role of infection and comorbidity: Factors that influence disparities in sepsis
Esper, A. M., Moss, M., Lewis, C. A., Nisbet, R., Mannino, D. M., & Martin, G. S. (2006) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000239114.50519.0e · Cited by 336
Candidemia as a cause of septic shock and multiple organ failure in nonimmunocompromised patients
Hadley, S., Lee, W. W., Ruthazer, R., & Nasraway, S. A. (2002) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-200208000-00023 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Opal, S. M., & Cohen, J.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1608-1616
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092993771
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.