Observational studyAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2015
Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.
Observational study in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children.Intensive care medicine · 2020Guideline
- The Role of Parental Concerns in the Recognition of Sepsis in Children: A Literature Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Pooled it
- The Infant Feeding History: An Evidence-Informed 9-Item Structured History for Detecting Serious Illness in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Early recognition and bundle-based management of pediatric sepsis in the emergency department: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Pediatric sepsis prediction: Human in the loop framework.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Predicting sepsis treatment decisions in the paediatric emergency department using machine learning: the AiSEPTRON study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Observational
- Identification of distinct clinical profiles of sepsis risk in paediatric emergency department patients using Bayesian profile regression.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Article
- [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Surviving Sepsis Screening: The Unintended Consequences of Continuous Surveillance.Hospital pediatrics · 2020Article
- Updates on pediatric sepsis.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Review
- Paediatric patient stratification in the emergency department.The Lancet. Child & adolescent health · 2020Article
- Gene Expression Profiles in Children With Suspected Sepsis.Annals of emergency medicine · 2020Review
- Design, Implementation, and Validation of a Pediatric ICU Sepsis Prediction Tool as Clinical Decision Support.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Predictive Model of the Risk of Pediatric Septic Shock Using Data Known at the Time of Hospital Arrival.The Journal of pediatrics · 2020Observational
- Management of Children With Fever at Risk for Pediatric Sepsis: A Prospective Study in Pediatric Emergency Care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Pediatric Severe Sepsis Prediction Using Machine Learning.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Article
- Continuum of care in pediatric sepsis: a prototypical acute care delivery model.Translational pediatrics · 2018Review
- We need smarter trigger tools for diagnosing sepsis in children in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to compare the effectiveness of physician judgment and an electronic algorithmic alert to identify pediatric patients with severe sepsis/septic shock in a pediatric emergency department (ED).
methodsThis was an observational cohort study of patients older than 56 days with fever or hypothermia. All patients were evaluated for potential sepsis in real time by the ED clinical team. An electronic algorithmic alert was retrospectively applied to identify patients with potential sepsis independent of physician judgment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients correctly identified with severe sepsis/septic shock defined by consensus criteria. Test characteristics were determined and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared.
resultsOf 19,524 eligible patient visits, 88 patients developed consensus-confirmed severe sepsis or septic shock. Physician judgment identified 159 and the algorithmic alert identified 3,301 patients with potential sepsis. Physician judgment had sensitivity of 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.1% to 73.4%) and specificity of 99.5% (95% CI = 99.4% to 99.6%); the algorithmic alert had sensitivity of 92.1% (95% CI = 91.7% to 92.4%) and specificity of 83.4% (95% CI = 82.9% to 83.9%) for severe sepsis/septic shock. There was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve for physician judgment (0.86, 95% CI = 0.81 to 0.91) or the algorithm (0.88, 95% CI = 0.85 to 0.91; p = 0.54). A combination method using either positive physician judgment or an algorithmic alert improved sensitivity to 96.6% and specificity to 83.3%. A sequential approach, in which positive identification by the algorithmic alert was then confirmed by physician judgment, achieved 68.2% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. Positive and negative predictive values for physician judgment versus algorithmic alert were 40.3% versus 2.5% and 99.88% versus 99.96%, respectively.
conclusionsThe electronic algorithmic alert was more sensitive but less specific than physician judgment for recognition of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock. These findings can help to guide institutions in selecting pediatric sepsis recognition methods based on institutional needs and priorities.
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.