ArticleChinese medical journal2019
Predictive accuracy of Sepsis-3 definitions for mortality among adult critically ill patients with suspected infection.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2019. 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.
- Clinical outcomes of empirical anti-MRSA therapy at a tertiary care center in Madinah, Saudi Arabia: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A framework and analytical exploration for a data-driven update of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in sepsis.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Septic shock 3.0 criteria application in severe COVID-19 patients: An unattended sepsis population with high mortality risk.World journal of critical care medicine · 2022Article
- The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: research priorities for the administration, epidemiology, scoring and identification of sepsis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis-3 definitions have been published recently; however, their diagnostic value remains controversial. This study was to assess the accuracy of Sepsis-3 definitions compared to Sepsis-1 definitions by stratifying mortality among adult critically ill patients with suspected infection.
methodsA multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted from November 10, 2017 to October 10, 2018, in five Intensive Care Units (ICUs) at four teaching hospitals. Thirty-day mortality was compared across categories for both Sepsis-3 definitions and Sepsis-1 definitions, which were evaluated by logistic regression analysis followed by measurement of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting 30-day mortality rates.
resultsOf the 749 enrolled patients, 644 (85.9%) were diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-1 definitions. Among those patients, 362 were diagnosed with septic shock (362/749, 48.3%). However, according to the Sepsis-3 definitions, there were 483 patients with a diagnosis of sepsis (483/749, 64.5%), among whom 299 patients were diagnosed with septic shock (299/749, 39.9%). According to the Sepsis-3 definitions, sepsis (sepsis and septic shock) patients had higher 30-day mortality (41.8%) than sepsis patients according to the Sepsis-1 definitions (31.8%, χ = 5.552, P = 0.020). The AUROC of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores with regard to 30-day mortality rates were 0.609 (0.566-0.652) and 0.694 (0.654-0.733), respectively. However, the AUROC of SOFA scores (0.828 [0.795-0.862]) were significantly higher than that of SIRS or qSOFA scores (P < 0.001).
conclusionIn adult critically ill patients with suspected infection, the Sepsis-3 definitions were relatively accurate in stratifying mortality and were superior to the Sepsis-1 definitions.
trial registrationwww.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR-OOC-17013223).
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.