Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31311608›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2019

Derivation and internal validation of the screening to enhance prehospital identification of sepsis (SEPSIS) score in adults on arrival at the emergency department.

Michael A Smyth, Daniel Gallacher, Peter K Kimani, Mark Ragoo, Matthew Ward, Gavin D Perkins

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Validation and comparison of triage-based screening strategies for sepsis.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Screening strategies to identify sepsis in the prehospital setting: a validation study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael A SmythClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. m.a.smyth@warwick.ac.uk.
Daniel GallacherClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Peter K KimaniClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Mark RagooRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke on Trent, UK.
Matthew WardWest Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK.
Gavin D PerkinsClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDRF-2012-03-058National Institute for Health Research CDRF-2012-05-058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians.

methodsWe derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n = 38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n = 16063, 70%) and validation (n = 6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline.

results'High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis' was present in 3.7% of derivation (n = 593) and validation (n = 254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p < 0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84-0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score ≥ 5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31-0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96-0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23-0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96-0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7-18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78-0.88).

conclusionThis is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesAdultAgedDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSepsisAmbulancePrediction modelPrehospitalScreening toolSepsis

Identifiers

PMID31311608
PMCPMC6636043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.