Observational studyPloS one2019
Sepsis information-seeking behaviors via Wikipedia between 2015 and 2018: A mixed methods retrospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 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.
- "Lost in Transition": Informational Needs of Sepsis Survivors and Their Relatives Across the Care Trajectory-A Qualitative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Public awareness and knowledge of sepsis: a cross-sectional survey of adults in Canada.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Liver Disease Information in Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Raising public awareness of sepsis, a potentially life-threatening dysregulated host response to infection, to hasten its recognition has become a major focus of physicians, investigators, and both non-governmental and governmental agencies. While the internet is a common means by which to seek out healthcare information, little is understood about patterns and drivers of these behaviors. We sought to examine traffic to Wikipedia, a popular and publicly available online encyclopedia, to better understand how, when, and why users access information about sepsis. Utilizing pageview traffic data for all available language localizations of the sepsis and septic shock pages between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018, significantly outlying daily pageview totals were identified using a seasonal hybrid extreme studentized deviate approach. Consecutive outlying days were aggregated, and a qualitative analysis was undertaken of print and online news media coverage to identify potential correlates. Traffic patterns were further characterized using paired referrer to resource (i.e. clickstream) data, which were available for a temporal subset of the pageviews. Of the 20,557,055 pageviews across 65 linguistic localizations, 47 of the 1,096 total daily pageview counts were identified as upward outliers. After aggregating sequential outlying days, 25 epochs were examined. Qualitative analysis identified at least one major news media correlate for each, which were typically related to high-profile deaths from sepsis and, less commonly, awareness promotion efforts. Clickstream analysis suggests that most sepsis and septic shock Wikipedia pageviews originate from external referrals, namely search engines. Owing to its granular and publicly available traffic data, Wikipedia holds promise as a means by which to better understand global drivers of online sepsis information seeking. Further characterization of user engagement with this information may help to elucidate means by which to optimize the visibility, content, and delivery of awareness promotion efforts.
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.