脓毒症和感染性休克的流行病学。

IF 2.1
Catherine Chiu, Matthieu Legrand
{"title":"脓毒症和感染性休克的流行病学。","authors":"Catherine Chiu,&nbsp;Matthieu Legrand","doi":"10.1097/ACO.0000000000000958","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock has been challenging to study for multiple reasons. These include changing diagnostic definitions, as well a high concentration of sepsis-related studies published from high-income countries (HICs), despite a large global burden. This section attempts to address the incidence of sepsis throughout the years and worldwide.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The incidence of sepsis and septic shock has continued to increase since the first consensus definitions (Sepsis-1) were established in 1991, and the latest definitions (Sepsis-3) provide a better reflection of mortality risk for a diagnosis of sepsis. Several studies argue that the incidence of sepsis is overreported in HICs, based on billing and coding practices, and may lead to overutilization of resources. However, recent estimates of the true global burden of sepsis, including low-income countries, are likely much higher than reported, with calls for better allocation of resources.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The true epidemiology of sepsis worldwide continues to be a highly debated subject, and more research is needed among low-income countries and high-risk subpopulations.</p>","PeriodicalId":520600,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"71-76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"63","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine Chiu,&nbsp;Matthieu Legrand\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACO.0000000000000958\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock has been challenging to study for multiple reasons. These include changing diagnostic definitions, as well a high concentration of sepsis-related studies published from high-income countries (HICs), despite a large global burden. This section attempts to address the incidence of sepsis throughout the years and worldwide.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The incidence of sepsis and septic shock has continued to increase since the first consensus definitions (Sepsis-1) were established in 1991, and the latest definitions (Sepsis-3) provide a better reflection of mortality risk for a diagnosis of sepsis. Several studies argue that the incidence of sepsis is overreported in HICs, based on billing and coding practices, and may lead to overutilization of resources. However, recent estimates of the true global burden of sepsis, including low-income countries, are likely much higher than reported, with calls for better allocation of resources.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The true epidemiology of sepsis worldwide continues to be a highly debated subject, and more research is needed among low-income countries and high-risk subpopulations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current opinion in anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"71-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"63\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current opinion in anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000958\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000958","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

摘要

综述目的:由于多种原因,脓毒症和脓毒性休克的流行病学研究一直具有挑战性。其中包括不断变化的诊断定义,以及高收入国家(HICs)发表的与败血症相关的研究高度集中,尽管这是一个巨大的全球负担。本节试图解决败血症的发生率在整个年和世界范围内。最新发现:自1991年第一个共识定义(败血症-1)建立以来,败血症和脓毒性休克的发生率持续增加,最新定义(败血症-3)更好地反映了败血症诊断的死亡风险。几项研究认为,基于计费和编码实践,hic中败血症的发生率被夸大了,并可能导致资源的过度利用。然而,最近对包括低收入国家在内的真实全球败血症负担的估计可能比报告的要高得多,因此呼吁更好地分配资源。总结:全球脓毒症的真正流行病学仍然是一个备受争议的话题,需要在低收入国家和高风险亚人群中进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock.

Purpose of review: The epidemiology of sepsis and septic shock has been challenging to study for multiple reasons. These include changing diagnostic definitions, as well a high concentration of sepsis-related studies published from high-income countries (HICs), despite a large global burden. This section attempts to address the incidence of sepsis throughout the years and worldwide.

Recent findings: The incidence of sepsis and septic shock has continued to increase since the first consensus definitions (Sepsis-1) were established in 1991, and the latest definitions (Sepsis-3) provide a better reflection of mortality risk for a diagnosis of sepsis. Several studies argue that the incidence of sepsis is overreported in HICs, based on billing and coding practices, and may lead to overutilization of resources. However, recent estimates of the true global burden of sepsis, including low-income countries, are likely much higher than reported, with calls for better allocation of resources.

Summary: The true epidemiology of sepsis worldwide continues to be a highly debated subject, and more research is needed among low-income countries and high-risk subpopulations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信