Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27064132›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology2016

Comparison of Procedure-Based and Diagnosis-Based Identifications of Severe Sepsis and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation in Administrative Data.

Hayato Yamana, Hiromasa Horiguchi, Kiyohide Fushimi, Hideo Yasunaga

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors.

Hayato YamanaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo.
Hiromasa Horiguchi
Kiyohide Fushimi
Hideo Yasunaga

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnoses recorded in administrative databases have limited utility for accurate identification of severe sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). We evaluated the performance of alternative identification methods that use procedure records.

methodsWe obtained data for adult patients admitted to intensive care units in three hospitals during a 1-year period. Severe sepsis and DIC were identified by three means: laboratory data, diagnoses, and procedures. Using laboratory data as a reference, the sensitivity and specificity of procedure-based methods and diagnosis-based methods were compared.

resultsOf 595 intensive care unit admissions, 212 (35.6%) and 81 (13.6%) were identified as severe sepsis and DIC, respectively, using laboratory data. The sensitivity of procedure-based methods for identifying severe sepsis was 64.2%, and the specificity was 65.3%. Two diagnosis-based methods -the Angus and Martin algorithms- exhibited sensitivities of 21.7% and 14.6% and specificities of 98.7% and 99.5%, respectively, for severe sepsis. For DIC, the sensitivity of procedure-based methods was 55.6%, and the specificity was 67.1%, and the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis-based methods were 35.8% and 98.2%, respectively.

conclusionsProcedure-based methods were more sensitive and less specific than diagnosis-based methods in identifying severe sepsis and DIC. Procedure records could improve disease identification in administrative databases.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsDisseminated Intravascular CoagulationFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLaboratories, HospitalMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificitySepsis

Identifiers

PMID27064132
PMCPMC5037250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.