ArticleBJGP open2017
Recognition of sepsis in primary care: a survey among GPs.
Article in BJGP open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in early detection and prognostication of sepsis: new approaches from the emergency department and intensive care unit.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- A program to improve sepsis management in the Emergency Department: a multicenter prospective study in France.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
- Early sepsis recognition: a pilot study using a rapid high-multiplex host-response mRNA diagnostic test.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- The sepsis journey and where digital alerts can help: a qualitative, interview study with survivors and family members in England.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment of moderate-to-severe community-acquired pneumonia: a propensity score matched study.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients: a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Article
- Use of sepsis-related diagnostic criteria in primary care: a survey among general practitioners.Family practice · 2021Article
- Vital signs, clinical rules, and gut feeling: an observational study among patients with fever.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Observational
- Characteristics of the prehospital phase of adult emergency department patients with an infection: A prospective pilot study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Gut Feelings Questionnaire in daily practice: a feasibility study using a mixed-methods approach in three European countries.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Management of sepsis in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly recognition and treatment of sepsis are important to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening tools using vital signs are effective in emergency departments. It is not known how the decision to refer a patient to the hospital with a possible serious infection is made in primary care.
aimTo gain insight into the clinical decision-making process of GPs in patients with possible sepsis infections. DESIGN &
settingSurvey among a random sample of 800 GPs in the Netherlands.
methodQuantitative questionnaire using Likert scales.
resultsOne hundred and sixty (20.3%) of questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Based on self-reported cases of possible serious infections, the factors most often indicated as important for the decision to refer patients to the hospital were: general appearance (94.1%), gut feeling (92.1%), history (92.0%), and physical examination (89.3%). Temperature (88.7%), heart rate (88.7%), and blood pressure (82.1%), were the most frequently measured vital signs. In general, GPs more likely referred patients in case of: altered mental status (98.7%), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (93.7%), unable to stand (89.3%), insufficient effect of previous antibiotic treatment (87.4%), and respiratory rate ≥22/minute (86.1%).
conclusionThe GPs' assessment of patients with possible serious infection is a complex process, in which besides checking vital signs, many other aspects of the consultation guide the decision to refer a patient to the hospital. To improve care for patients with sepsis, the diagnostic and prognostic value of assessing the vital signs and symptoms, GPs' gut feeling, and additional diagnostic tests, should be prospectively studied in the primary care 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.