Whose sepsis? Tropical infections and the limits of contemporary sepsis evidence

Clicks: 10
ID: 332920
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #73 of 79 articles by views in transactions of the royal society of tropical medicine and hygiene

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Dear Editor, Sepsis is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Global Burden of Disease Study estimated 48.9 million incident cases and 11.0 million sepsis-related deaths in 2017, almost one in five deaths globally.1 Over recent decades, randomized controlled trials have substantially refined the management of sepsis and critical illness. Lung-protective ventilation, safer haemodynamic strategies, appropriate vasopressor use, and evidence-based supportive care now underpin contemporary practice and represent some of the most important achievements of modern critical care. Yet a paradox persists. The greatest burden of sepsis falls on sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Oceania,1 precisely the regions where dengue, malaria, leptospirosis, scrub typhus, melioidosis, and other tropical infections drive a substantial share of severe illness and critical-care admission. Despite this, the representation of these infections in landmark sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome trials is difficult to determine. Causative pathogens are frequently absent, grouped into broad microbiological categories, or not reported separately, making it unclear whether individual tropical infections were excluded, underrepresented, or simply not identifiable (Table S1). The practical consequence is the same. Clinicians must extrapolate evidence largely generated in sepsis populations dominated by pneumonia, intra-abdominal infection, urinary infection, and healthcare-associated infection to pathogen-defined syndromes with potentially different pathophysiology.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222950547 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Tirlangi Praveen Kumar, Nitin Ranjan Gupta
Journal transactions of the royal society of tropical medicine and hygiene
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/trstmh/trag132
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trag132
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.