Observational studyPloS one2017
Initial disease severity and quality of care of emergency department sepsis patients who are older or younger than 70 years of age.
Observational study in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-driven cluster analysis for identifying clinical phenotypes in suspected sepsis patients in the emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The challenge of sepsis in older adults in the Emergency Department and intensive care units.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of early hypothermia in sepsis patients.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Emergency department performance assessment using administrative data: A managerial framework.PloS one · 2023Review
- Significance of body temperature in elderly patients with sepsis.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDue to atypical symptom presentation older patients are more prone to delayed sepsis recognition. We investigated whether initial disease severity before emergency department (ED) treatment (including treatable acute organ dysfunction), quality of ED sepsis care and the impact on mortality was different between patients older and younger than 70 years. If differences exist, improvements are needed for ED management of older patients at risk for sepsis.
methodsIn this observational multicenter study, ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were stratified by age <70 and ≥70 years. The presence of treatable and potentially reversible acute organ dysfunction was measured by the RO components of the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) score, reflecting acute sepsis-related organ dysfunction developed before ED presentation. Quality of care, as assessed by the full compliance with nine quality performance measures and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR: observed/expected in-hospital mortality), was compared between older and younger patients.
resultsThe RO-components of the PIRO score were 8 (interquartile range; 4-9) in the 833 older patients, twice as high as the 4 (2-8; P<0.001) in the 1537 younger patients. However, full compliance with all nine quality performance measures was achieved in 34.2 (31.0-37.4)% of the older patients, not higher than the 33.0 (30.7-35.4)% in younger patients (P = 0.640). In-hospital mortality was 9.2% (95%-CI, 7.3-11.2) in patients ≥70, twice as high as the 4.6% (3.6-5.6) in patients <70 years, resulting in an SMR (in study period) of ~0.7 in both groups (P>0.05).
conclusionOlder sepsis patients are sicker at ED presentation but are not treated more expediently or reliably despite their extra acuity The presence of twice as much treatable acute organ dysfunction before ED treatment suggests that acute organ dysfunction is recognized relatively late by general practitioners or patients in the out of hospital setting.
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.