Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26474032›Full record

Observational studyAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2015

Comparison of Two Sepsis Recognition Methods in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Fran Balamuth, Elizabeth R Alpern, Robert W Grundmeier, Marianne Chilutti, Scott L Weiss, Julie C Fitzgerald, Katie Hayes, Warren Bilker, Ebbing Lautenbach

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Updates on pediatric sepsis.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    Review
  13. Paediatric patient stratification in the emergency department.The Lancet. Child & adolescent health · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. We need smarter trigger tools for diagnosing sepsis in children in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Fran BalamuthDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Elizabeth R AlpernDepartment of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Division of Emergency Medicine, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Robert W GrundmeierDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Marianne ChiluttiCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Scott L WeissDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Julie C FitzgeraldDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Katie HayesDivision of Emergency Medicine and Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Warren BilkerCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Ebbing LautenbachCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

Pediatric Critical Care Scientist Development ProgramK12HD047349 · NICHD · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI HEATHER T. KEENAN, Kevin M Watt · 2004 to 2026
$17.0M
Enabling Medical Research Growth in Emergency MedicineK12HL109009 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI KIMMEL, STEPHEN E. · 2011 to 2015
$3.4M
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Pediatric SepsisK23GM110496 · NIGMS · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI WEISS, SCOTT L · 2015 to 2018
$723k
RNA Expression Profiling in Pediatric Patients with Suspected SepsisK23HD082368 · NICHD · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI BALAMUTH, FRANCES B · 2015 to 2017
$413k
ACL HHS U54CK000163NCEZID CDC HHS U54 CK000163NCEZID CDC HHS U54-CK000163NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL109009NHLBI NIH HHS K12-HL109009NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD047349NICHD NIH HHS K12-HD047349NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD 082368NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD082368NIGMS NIH HHS K23 GM110496NIGMS NIH HHS K23-GM110496
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingHospitals, PediatricAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolConsensusEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFeverHumansHypothermiaInfantMaleRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID26474032
PMCPMC4639443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.