Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30768498›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2019

Sepsis Surveillance Using Adult Sepsis Events Simplified eSOFA Criteria Versus Sepsis-3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Criteria.

Chanu Rhee, Zilu Zhang, Sameer S Kadri, David J Murphy, Greg S Martin, Elizabeth Overton, Christopher W Seymour, Derek C Angus, Raymund Dantes, Lauren Epstein and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What can the machine teach us?Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chanu RheeDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston MA.
Zilu ZhangDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston MA.
Sameer S KadriDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
David J MurphyDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory Critical Care Center, Atlanta, GA.
Greg S MartinDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory Critical Care Center, Atlanta, GA.
Elizabeth OvertonDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Emory Critical Care Center, Atlanta, GA.
Christopher W SeymourThe Clinical Research, Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Derek C AngusThe Clinical Research, Investigation and Systems Modeling of Acute illness (CRISMA) Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Raymund DantesDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Lauren EpsteinDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
David FramCommonwealth Informatics, Waltham, MA.
Richard SchaafCommonwealth Informatics, Waltham, MA.
Rui WangDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston MA.
Michael KlompasDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston MA.
CDC Prevention Epicenters Program
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · US

Funding

Sepsis subtypes: biology, treatment, and bedside applicationR35GM119519 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Christopher W. Seymour · 2016 to 2026
$4.9M
Objective Evaluation of Variation in Sepsis Incidence, Mortality, and CareK08HS025008 · AHRQ · HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC. · PI RHEE, CHANU · 2017 to 2019
$450k
Big Data - Epidemiology of Critical Illness and SepsisZIACL090045 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI KADRI, SAMEER · 2017 to 2025
$0k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS025008NCEZID CDC HHS U54 CK000484NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM119519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSepsis-3 defines organ dysfunction as an increase in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by greater than or equal to 2 points. However, some Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score components are not routinely recorded in all hospitals' electronic health record systems, limiting its utility for wide-scale sepsis surveillance. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released the Adult Sepsis Event surveillance definition that includes simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA). We compared eSOFA versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment with regard to sepsis prevalence, overlap, and outcomes.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingOne hundred eleven U.S. hospitals in the Cerner HealthFacts dataset. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized in 2013-2015.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe identified clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood cultures and antibiotics) concurrent with either: 1) an increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score by 2 or more points (Sepsis-3) or 2) 1 or more eSOFA criteria: vasopressor initiation, mechanical ventilation initiation, lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL, or greater than or equal to 50% decrease in platelet count to less than 100 cells/μL (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event). We compared area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for discriminating in-hospital mortality, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Of 942,360 patients in the cohort, 57,242 (6.1%) had sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment versus 41,618 (4.4%) by eSOFA. Agreement between sepsis by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and eSOFA was good (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). Baseline characteristics and infectious diagnoses were similar, but mortality was higher with eSOFA (17.1%) versus Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (14.4%; p < 0.001) as was discrimination for mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.774 vs 0.759; p < 0.001). Comparisons were consistent across subgroups of age, infectious diagnoses, and comorbidities.

conclusionsThe Adult Sepsis Event's eSOFA organ dysfunction criteria identify a smaller, more severely ill sepsis cohort compared with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, but with good overlap and similar clinical characteristics. Adult Sepsis Events may facilitate wide-scale automated sepsis surveillance that tracks closely with the more complex Sepsis-3 criteria.

Indexed as

Organ Dysfunction ScoresAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPopulation SurveillancePrevalenceRetrospective StudiesSepsisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30768498
PMCPMC6383796
OpenAlexW2918426727

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.