ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2016
Sepsis surveillance from administrative data in the absence of a perfect verification.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- ICD-10-CM-Based Algorithms to Identify Bacteremia Incorporating Pathogen-Specific Codes: A Validation Study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Community-acquired pneumonia identification from electronic health records in the absence of a gold standard: A Bayesian latent class analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Accuracy of the modified Global Burden of Disease International Classification of Diseases coding methods for identifying sepsis: a prospective multicentre cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Misclassification Error-Adjusted Prevalence of Injection Drug Use Among Infective Endocarditis Hospitalizations in the United States: A Serial Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 2007-2016 National Inpatient Sample.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Validity of ICD-based algorithms to estimate the prevalence of injection drug use among infective endocarditis hospitalizations in the absence of a reference standard.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2020Article
- Trends in Hospitalizations for Serious Infections in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US Between 1993 and 2013.Arthritis care & research · 2018Article
- Updated Estimates Suggest a Much Higher Prevalence of Arthritis in United States Adults Than Previous Ones.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2018Article
- Dual Functioned Pegylated Phospholipid Micelles Containing Cationic Antimicrobial Decapeptide for Treating Sepsis.Theranostics · 2017Article
- Sepsis and the theory of relativity: measuring a moving target with a moving measuring stick.Critical care (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePast studies of sepsis epidemiology did not address misclassification bias due to imperfect verification of sepsis detection methods to estimate the true prevalence.
methodsWe examined 273,126 hospitalizations from 2008 to 2012 at a tertiary-care center to develop surveillance-aimed sepsis detection criteria, based on the presence of the sepsis-explicit International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (995.92 or 785.52), blood culture orders, and antibiotics administration. We used Bayesian multinomial latent class models to estimate the true prevalence of sepsis, while adjusting for the imperfect sensitivity and specificity and the conditional dependence among the individual criteria.
resultsThe apparent annual prevalence of sepsis hospitalizations based on explicit International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were 1.5%, 1.4%, 1.6%, 2.2%, and 2.5% for the years 2008 to 2012. Bayesian posterior estimates for the true prevalence of sepsis suggested that it remained stable from 2008, 19.2% (95% credible interval [CI]: 17.9%, 22.9%), to 2012, 17.8% (95% CI: 16.8%, 20.2%). The sensitivity of sepsis-explicit codes, however, increased from 7.6% (95% CI: 6.4%, 8.4%) in 2008 to 13.8% (95% CI: 12.2%, 14.9%) in 2012.
conclusionsThe true prevalence of sepsis remained high, but stable despite an increase in the sensitivity of sepsis-explicit codes in administrative data.
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.