Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27733132›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2016

Differences in reported sepsis incidence according to study design: a literature review.

Saga Elise Mariansdatter, Andreas Halgreen Eiset, Kirstine Kobberøe Søgaard, Christian Fynbo Christiansen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Relevance of Coding Gene Polymorphysms of Cytokines and Cellular Receptors in Sepsis.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2017
    Review
  12. 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

4 authors.

Saga Elise MariansdatterDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. sagamari@rm.dk.
Andreas Halgreen EisetDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kirstine Kobberøe SøgaardDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Christian Fynbo ChristiansenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis and severe sepsis are common conditions in hospital settings, and are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, but reported incidences vary considerably. In this literature review, we describe the variation in reported population-based incidences of sepsis and severe sepsis. We also examine methodological and demographic differences between studies that may explain this variation.

methodsWe carried out a literature review searching three major databases and reference lists of relevant articles, to identify all original studies reporting the incidence of sepsis or severe sepsis in the general population. Two authors independently assessed all articles, and the final decision to exclude an article was reached by consensus. We extracted data according to predetermined variables, including study country, sepsis definition, and data source. We then calculated descriptive statistics for the reported incidences of sepsis and severe sepsis. The studies were classified according to the method used to identify cases of sepsis or severe sepsis: chart-based (i.e. review of patient charts) or code-based (i.e. predetermined International Classification of Diseases [ICD] codes).

resultsAmong 482 articles initially screened, we identified 23 primary publications reporting incidence of sepsis and/or severe sepsis in the general population. The reported incidences ranged from 74 to 1180 per 100,000 person-years and 3 to 1074 per 100,000 person-years for sepsis and severe sepsis, respectively. Most chart-based studies used the Bone criteria (or a modification hereof) and Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study criteria to identify cases of sepsis and severe sepsis. Most code-based studies used ICD-9 codes, but the number of codes used ranged from 1 to more than 1200. We found that the incidence varied according to how sepsis was identified (chart-based vs. code-based), calendar year, data source, and world region.

conclusionThe reported incidences of sepsis and severe sepsis in the general population varied greatly between studies. Such differences may be attributable to differences in the methods used to collect the data, the study period, or the world region where the study was undertaken. This finding highlights the importance of standardised definitions and acquisition of data regarding sepsis and severe sepsis.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualHumansIncidenceInternational Classification of DiseasesPopulation SurveillanceReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignResearch ReportSepsisEpidemiologyIncidenceMethodReviewSepsisSepticaemiaSevere sepsisSIRS

Identifiers

PMID27733132
PMCPMC5062833

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.