Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31984366›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2019

Sepsis surveillance: an examination of parameter sensitivity and alert reliability.

Robert C Amland, Mark Burghart, J Marc Overhage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Robert C AmlandPopulation Health, Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6830-1294
Mark BurghartPopulation Health, Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
J Marc OverhagePopulation Health, Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine performance of a sepsis surveillance system in a simulated environment where modifications to parameters and settings for identification of at-risk patients can be explored in-depth. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a multiple center observational cohort study. The study population comprised 14 917 adults hospitalized in 2016. An expert-driven rules algorithm was applied against 15.1 million data points to simulate a system with binary notification of sepsis events. Three system scenarios were examined: a scenario as derived from the second version of the Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (SEP-2), the same scenario but without systolic blood pressure (SBP) decrease criteria (near SEP-2), and a conservative scenario with limited parameters. Patients identified by scenarios as being at-risk for sepsis were assessed for suspected infection. Multivariate binary logistic regression models estimated mortality risk among patients with suspected infection.

resultsFirst, the SEP-2-based scenario had a hyperactive, unreliable parameter SBP decrease >40 mm Hg from baseline. Second, the near SEP-2 scenario demonstrated adequate reliability and sensitivity. Third, the conservative scenario had modestly higher reliability, but sensitivity degraded quickly. Parameters differed in predicting mortality risk and represented a substitution effect between scenarios. DISCUSSION: Configuration of parameters and alert criteria have implications for patient identification and predicted outcomes.

conclusionPerformance of scenarios was associated with scenario design. A single hyperactive, unreliable parameter may negatively influence adoption of the system. A trade-off between modest improvements in alert reliability corresponded to a steep decline in condition sensitivity in scenarios explored.

Indexed as

classificationdecision supportergonomicsexpert systemssepsis

Identifiers

PMID31984366
PMCPMC6951868

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.