Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166234›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2019

Comparison of Automated Sepsis Identification Methods and Electronic Health Record-based Sepsis Phenotyping: Improving Case Identification Accuracy by Accounting for Confounding Comorbid Conditions.

Katharine E Henry, David N Hager, Tiffany M Osborn, Albert W Wu, Suchi Saria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Methicillin-resistantJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

5 authors.

Katharine E HenryDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
David N HagerDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Tiffany M OsbornDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Albert W WuDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Suchi SariaDepartment of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop and evaluate a novel strategy that automates the retrospective identification of sepsis using electronic health record data.

designRetrospective cohort study of emergency department and in-hospital patient encounters from 2014 to 2018.

settingOne community and two academic hospitals in Maryland. PATIENTS: All patients 18 years old or older presenting to the emergency department or admitted to any acute inpatient medical or surgical unit including patients discharged from the emergency department.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsFrom the electronic health record, 233,252 emergency department and inpatient encounters were identified. Patient data were used to develop and validate electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, an adaptation of "the Centers for Disease Control Adult Sepsis Event toolkit" that accounts for comorbid conditions when identifying sepsis patients. The performance of this novel system was then compared with 1) physician case review and 2) three other commonly used strategies using metrics of sensitivity and precision relative to sepsis billing codes, termed "billing code sensitivity" and "billing code predictive value." Physician review of electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified cases confirmed 79% as having sepsis; 88% were confirmed or had a billing code for sepsis; and 99% were confirmed, had a billing code, or received at least 4 days of antibiotics. At comparable billing code sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93), electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping had a higher billing code predictive value (0.32; 95% CI, 0.30-0.34) than either the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Sepsis Core Measure (SEP-1) definition or the Sepsis-3 consensus definition (0.12; 95% CI, 0.11-0.13; and 0.07; 95% CI, 0.07-0.08, respectively). When compared with electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping, Adult Sepsis Event had a lower billing code sensitivity (0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.78) and similar billing code predictive value (0.29; 95% CI, 0.26-0.31). Electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping identified patients with higher in-hospital mortality and nearly one-half as many false-positive cases when compared with SEP-1 and Sepsis-3.

conclusionsBy accounting for comorbid conditions, electronic health record-based sepsis phenotyping exhibited better performance when compared with other automated definitions of sepsis.

Indexed as

electronic data processingelectronic health recordsinformaticsmachine learningsepsissevere sepsis

Identifiers

PMID32166234
PMCPMC7063888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.