Observational studyJournal of critical care2015
Epidemiology and outcomes in patients with severe sepsis admitted to the hospital wards.
Observational study in Journal of critical care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Basal procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and presepsin for prediction of mortality in critically ill septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2023Review
- Validation of an ICD-Based Algorithm to Identify Sepsis: A Retrospective Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2023Article
- Levosimendan Ameliorates Cardiopulmonary Function but Not Inflammatory Response in a Dual Model of Experimental ARDS.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Article
- Delta Lactate (Three-hour Lactate Minus Initial Lactate) Prediction of In-hospital Death in Sepsis Patients.Cureus · 2020Article
- "Appropriate" Versus "Inappropriate" Antibiotic Administration, "Prior To" Versus "After" the Diagnosis of Septic Shock. Impact on Patients with Sepsis Admitted to a Saudi Intensive Care Unit.Materia socio-medica · 2020Article
- Back to Basics: Recognition of Sepsis with New Definition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Direct admission to the intensive care unit from the emergency department and mortality in critically ill hematology patients.Annals of intensive care · 2019Article
- Central Venous Access Capability and Critical Care Telemedicine Decreases Inter-Hospital Transfer Among Severe Sepsis Patients: A Mixed Methods Design.Critical care medicine · 2019Article
- Epidemiology of sepsis in intensive care units in Turkey: a multicenter, point-prevalence study.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Article
- Clinical predictors of early death from sepsis.Journal of critical care · 2017Observational
- Treatment with 24 h-delayed normo- and hyperbaric oxygenation in severe sepsis induced by cecal ligation and puncture in rats.Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2017Article
- Predictors of early progression to severe sepsis or shock among emergency department patients with nonsevere sepsis.International journal of emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Improving the Recognition of, and Response to In-Hospital Sepsis.Current infectious disease reports · 2016Review
- A Comparative Study to Assess the Determinants and Outcomes of Sepsis Treated in Medical Wards and ICU in an Indian Teaching Hospital.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Validation and optimisation of an ICD-10-coded case definition for sepsis using administrative health data.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Aspirin as a potential treatment in sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome.Critical care (London, England) · 2015Review
- Evolving trends in the epidemiology, resource utilization, and outcomes of pregnancy-associated severe sepsis: a population-based cohort study.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to detail the trajectory and outcomes of patients with severe sepsis admitted from the emergency department to a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting and identify risk factors associated with adverse outcomes. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary, academic hospital in the United States between 2005 and 2009. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of ICU transfer within 48 hours of admission and/or 28-day mortality.
resultsOf 1853 patients admitted with severe sepsis, 841 (45%) were admitted to a non-ICU setting, the rate increased over time (P < .001), and 12.5% of these patients were transferred to the ICU within 48 hours and/or died within 28 days. In multivariable models, age (P < .001), an oncology diagnosis (P < .001), and illness severity as measured by Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II (P = .04) and high (≥4 mmol/L) initial serum lactate levels (P = .005) were associated with the primary outcome.
conclusionsPatients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis were frequently admitted to a non-ICU setting, and the rate increased over time. Of 8 patients admitted to the hospital ward, one was transferred to the ICU within 48 hours and/or died within 28 days of admission. Factors present at admission were identified that were associated with adverse outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.