SynthesisAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2015
Variation in the Contents of Sepsis Bundles and Quality Measures. A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes for Emergency Department Presentations of Sepsis Managed on a Clinical Pathway: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Variability in Provider Assessment of Sepsis and Potential of Host Response Technology to Address this Dilemma-Results of an Online Delphi Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Inpatient hospital performance is associated with post-discharge sepsis mortality.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the successful development, implementation and evaluation of care bundles in acute care in hospital: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Keeping It Simple in Sepsis Measures.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleSepsis contributes to one in every two to three inpatient hospital deaths. Early recognition and treatment are instrumental in reducing mortality, yet there are substantial quality gaps. Sepsis bundles containing quality metrics are often used in efforts to improve outcomes. Several prominent organizations have published their own bundles, but there are few head-to-head comparisons of content.
objectivesWe sought to determine the degree of agreement on component elements of sepsis bundles and the associated timing goals for completion of each element. We additionally sought to evaluate the amount of variation between metrics associated with bundles.
methodsWe reviewed the components of and level of agreement among several sepsis resuscitation and management bundles. We compared the individual bundle elements, together with their associated goals and metrics. We performed a systematic review (PubMed 2008-2015) and searched publically available online content, supplemented by interviews with key informants, to identify eight distinct bundles. Bundles are presented as current as of April 2015. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsBroadly, elements of care covered early resuscitation and short-term management. Bundles varied from 6 to 10 elements, and there were 12 distinct elements listed across all bundles. Only lactate collection and broad-spectrum antibiotics were common to all eight bundles, although there were seven elements included in at least 75% of the bundles. Timing goals for the collection of lactate and antibiotic administration varied among bundles from within 1 to 6 hours of diagnosis or admission. Notably, no bundle included metrics evaluating timeliness or completeness of sepsis recognition.
conclusionsThere is a lack of consensus on component elements and timing goals across highly recognized sepsis bundles. These differences highlight an urgent need for comparative effectiveness research to guide future implementation and for metrics to evaluate progress. None of the widely instituted bundles include metrics to evaluate sepsis recognition or diagnostic accuracy.
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.