Source control in bloodstream infections in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission: a scoping review with recommendations for standardizing research
Authors' conclusion
SC research in severe BSI is limited by inconsistent definitions, poor SC efficacy assessments, and overrepresentation of catheter-source BSI and candidemia.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with bloodstream infections (BSI) and sepsis, septic shock or ICU admission (populations with ≥ 50% ICU admission, ≥ 75% sepsis, or ≥ 25% septic shock)77 studies
- Outcome
- Source control in BSI literature: definitions, interventions, timing, adequacy, outcomes
Methodological detailsproposal for standardized reporting, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searched
- Proposal for standardized reporting
- Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searched
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Source control (SC) a primary objective
- 21%
- Candidemia studies
- 47%
- Catheter removal studies
- 60%
- Evaluating catheter removal regardless of BSI source
- 34%
- SC definition: none
- 8%
- SC definition: minimal
- 7%
- SC definition: concise
- 17%
- SC definition: comprehensive
- 9%
- SC definition: catheter removal
- 60%
- Reported proportions receiving SC for entire cohort rather than those requiring SC
- 47%
- Timing reported (inconsistent definitions)
- 68%
- SC adequacy assessed
- 3%
- SC improved outcomes
- 65%
Safety
Harm of SC
- No reported harm
Original publication
Source control in bloodstream infections in patients with sepsis, septic shock, or requiring ICU admission: a scoping review with recommendations for standardizing research. Intensive Care Med. Published 14 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →