Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27441906›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2016

An Algorithm for Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria-Based Prediction of Sepsis in a Polytrauma Cohort.

Holger A Lindner, Ümniye Balaban, Timo Sturm, Christel Weiß, Manfred Thiel, Verena Schneider-Lindner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  14. Expert's comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled "Pure distraction injury of T1-2 with quad fever" by Jun-Yeong Seo et al. (Eur Spine J [2017]: doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5232-2).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Holger A Lindner1Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.2Department of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.3Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Ümniye Balaban
Timo Sturm
Christel Weiß
Manfred Thiel
Verena Schneider-Lindner
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLifesaving early distinction of infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome, known as "sepsis," from noninfectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome is challenging in the ICU because of high systemic inflammatory response syndrome prevalence and lack of specific biomarkers. The purpose of this study was to use an automatic algorithm to detect systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria (tachycardia, tachypnea, leukocytosis, and fever) in surgical ICU patients for ICU-wide systemic inflammatory response syndrome prevalence determination and evaluation of algorithm-derived systemic inflammatory response syndrome descriptors for sepsis prediction and diagnosis in a polytrauma cohort.

designCross-sectional descriptive study and retrospective cohort study.

settingElectronic medical records of a tertiary care center's surgical ICU, 2006-2011. PATIENTS: All ICU admissions and consecutive polytrauma admissions.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsAverage prevalence of conventional systemic inflammatory response syndrome (≥ 2 criteria met concomitantly) from cross-sectional application of the algorithm to all ICU patients and each minute of the study period was 43.3%. Of 256 validated polytrauma patients, 85 developed sepsis (33.2%). Three systemic inflammatory response syndrome descriptors summarized the 24 hours after admission and before therapy initiation: 1) systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria average for systemic inflammatory response syndrome quantification over time, 2) first-to-last minute difference for trend detection, and 3) change count reflecting systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria fluctuation. Conventional systemic inflammatory response syndrome for greater than or equal to 1 minute had 91% sensitivity and 19% specificity, whereas a systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria average cutoff value of 1.72 had 51% sensitivity and 77% specificity for sepsis prediction. For sepsis diagnosis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria average and first-to-last minute difference combined yielded 82% sensitivity and 71% specificity compared with 99% sensitivity and only 31% specificity of conventional systemic inflammatory response syndrome from a nested case-control analysis.

conclusionsDynamic systemic inflammatory response syndrome descriptors improved specificity of sepsis prediction and particularly diagnosis, rivaling established biomarkers, in a polytrauma cohort. They may enhance electronic sepsis surveillance once evaluated in other patient populations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedMultiple TraumaRetrospective StudiesSepsisSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27441906
OpenAlexW2483029617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.