Observational studyAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2019
Paths into Sepsis: Trajectories of Presepsis Healthcare Use.
Observational study in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sepsis prediction, early detection, and identification using clinical text for machine learning: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship. Priorities for Research and Practice.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Dissociation between gut microbiota remodeling and early gut-liver injury in CLP-induced sepsis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The STop UNhealthy substance use now (STUN II) trial: protocol for a 48-site cluster randomized 2 × 2 factorial implementation trial to improve evidence-based screening and interventions for substance use disorder within primary care.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Impact of direct ICU admission of pneumococcal meningitis in France: a retrospective analysis of a French medico-administrative (PMSI) database.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Patients' experiences and perspectives of post-hospital follow-up care to improve physical recovery for intensive care survivors: A systematic review of qualitative research.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Review
- The future of paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- Development and Trends in Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care Medicine: A Bibliometric Analysis of Related Research over the Period of 2010-2021.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Frequency and Types of Healthcare Encounters in the Week Preceding a Sepsis Hospitalization: A Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2022Review
- The blood-brain barrier dysfunction in sepsis.Tissue barriers · 2021Review
- Identifying Clinical Research Priorities in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care. NHLBI Working Group Report.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Assessment of Health Care Exposures and Outcomes in Adult Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Health-related quality of life after critical care-the emperor's new clothes.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Reducing the Effect of Critical Illness by Continuing to Think beyond the Intensive Care Unit.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Article
- Reply: End-of-Life Treatment Preferences in the Health and Retirement Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Article
- Could Decisions to Limit Treatment Contribute to Mortality Differences between Patients with Different Presepsis Trajectories?Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleSepsis is a leading cause of death and disability whose heterogeneity is often cited as a key impediment to translational progress.
objectivesTo test the hypothesis that there are consequential and significant differences in sepsis outcomes that result from differences in a patient's clinical course leading up to sepsis hospitalization.
methodsWe conducted an observational cohort study of U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) participants in Medicare (1998-2012) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs beneficiaries (2009). Using latent profile analysis, we identified patient subtypes based on trajectory of presepsis healthcare facility use. Subtypes were identified in the derivation cohort (1,512 sepsis hospitalizations among earlier HRS participants), then validated them in two additional cohorts (1,992 sepsis hospitalizations among later HRS participants; 32,525 sepsis hospitalizations among U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs beneficiaries). We measured the association between presepsis path and 90-day mortality using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsWe identified three subtypes: low use of inpatient healthcare facilities, comprising 84% of the derivation cohort; rising use, 12%; and high use, 4%. The shape and distribution of presepsis trajectories were similar in all three cohorts. In the derivation cohort, 90-day mortality differed by presepsis trajectory as follows: 38% (low use), 63% (rising use), and 48% (high use) (P < 0.001). This association persisted in the validation cohorts (P < 0.001 for each). The rising use class remained an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment for potential confounders, including detailed physiologic data.
conclusionsIn national cohorts of patients with sepsis, we have shown that several distinct paths into sepsis exist. These paths, identified by trajectories of presepsis healthcare use, are predictive of 90-day mortality.
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.