Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28817480›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2017

Revised National Estimates of Emergency Department Visits for Sepsis in the United States.

Henry E Wang, Allison R Jones, John P Donnelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. The weekend effect in sepsis and septic shock: a 5-year US national study.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Effect of Sepsis Recognition on Telemedicine Use in Rural Emergency Department Sepsis Treatment.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Henry E Wang1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.2University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Nursing, Birmingham, AL.3Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Allison R Jones
John P Donnelly

Funding

Risk Factors for Sepsis in the CommunityR01NR012726 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI WANG, HENRY E. · 2011 to 2015
$2.6M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR012726
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe emergency department is an important venue for initial sepsis recognition and care. We sought to determine contemporary estimates of the epidemiology of U.S. emergency department visits for sepsis.

designAnalysis of data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

settingU.S. emergency department visits, 2009-2011. PATIENTS: Adult (age, ≥ 18 yr) emergency department sepsis patients. We defined serious infection as an emergency department diagnosis of a serious infection or a triage temperature greater than 38°C or less than 36°C. We defined three emergency department sepsis classifications: 1) original emergency department sepsis-serious infection plus emergency department diagnosis of organ dysfunction, endotracheal intubation, or systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg or explicit sepsis emergency department diagnoses; 2) quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment emergency department sepsis-serious infection plus presence of at least two "quick" Sequential Organ Failure Assessment criteria (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 14, respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, or systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mm Hg); and 3) revised emergency department sepsis-original or quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment emergency department sepsis.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe used survey design and weighting variables to produce national estimates of annual adult emergency department visits using updated sepsis classifications. Over 2009-2011, there were 103,257,516 annual adult emergency department visits. The estimated number of emergency department sepsis visits were as follows: 1) original emergency department sepsis 665,319 (0.64%; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73); 2) quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment emergency department sepsis 318,832 (0.31%; 95% CI, 0.26-0.37); and 3) revised emergency department sepsis 847,868 (0.82%; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).

conclusionsSepsis continues to present a major burden to U.S. emergency departments, affecting up to nearly 850,000 emergency department visits annually. Updated sepsis classifications may impact national estimates of emergency department sepsis epidemiology.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBlood PressureCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresSepsisUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28817480
PMCPMC5609499

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.