ArticleDer Anaesthesist2018
Implementation of the Sepsis-3 definition in German university intensive care units : A survey.
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of the new S2e guideline "first-trimester diagnostics and therapy @ 11-13 + 6 weeks of pregnancy": a survey in outpatient practices.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- [SEPSIS-3.0-Is intensive care medicine ready for ICD-11?]Der Anaesthesist · 2022Article
- Construction of a potentially functional lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA network in sepsis by bioinformatics analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe old definition of sepsis was replaced by Sepsis-3 in February 2016. The new screening diagnostic tools sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and quick SOFA (qSOFA) score were incorporated into the definition. The resulting scientific controversy led to several retrospective and prospective evaluations. In contrast no evaluation of the state of play of national implementation of Sepsis-3 has been conducted so far.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to capture the current situation in German academic intensive care units 1 year after the implementation of Sepsis-3.
methodsAn internet-based questionnaire consisting of 22 items was developed. The identification of eligible departments was performed by an online search of the homepages of all university hospitals located in Germany. Departments regardless of the discipline with an explicit indication of involvement in intensive care were extracted. The link to the internet-based questionnaire was sent to all identified departments on 22 February 2017 and was accessible for 19 days.
resultsOut of 259 departments 76 answered the online survey. The response rate was 29.3% from 13 specializations. Anesthesiology, internal medicine and general surgery were the three main participants in this study. The majority of intensive care units (54.75%) treated more than 100 patients with sepsis or septic shock annually and more than 30% treated more than 250 patients. While 76.7% of respondents had a standard operating procedure, 55% of those were based on the Sepsis-3 definition. When asked to rate the usefulness of the Sepsis-3 definition, answers were heterogeneous with a slight tendency towards a higher usefulness and the majority (72.9%) were in favor of Sepsis-3 being included in the national S2K guidelines.
conclusionThe results demonstrate the heterogeneity of Sepsis-3 implementation in German intensive care units. Sepsis-3 is finding its way but there is a need for standardized implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29946857What 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.