Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32374861›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure.

Chanu Rhee, Kathleen Chiotos, Sara E Cosgrove, Emily L Heil, Sameer S Kadri, Andre C Kalil, David N Gilbert, Henry Masur, Edward J Septimus, Daniel A Sweeney and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05968287 (Evaluation of the Relationship of Neutrophil Functions With Sepsis and Septic Shock Using the Leukocyte ImmunoTest™ in Patients With Various Infectious Conditions), which is not on this map. Cited by 97 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05968287 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Relationship of Neutrophil Functions With Sepsis and Septic Shock Using the Leukocyte ImmunoTest™ in Patients With Various Infectious Conditions

TypeobservationalSponsorGazi UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled276ConditionsInfections, Sepsis, Septic ShockArmsThe Leukocyte ImmunoTest™ (LIT™)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic Value of End-Tidal Carbon Dioxide Combined With Lactate for Early Detection of Sepsis in Prehospital Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Optimal antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.Critical care (London, England) · 2025
    Review

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Chanu RheeDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kathleen ChiotosDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sara E CosgroveDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Emily L HeilDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sameer S KadriCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Andre C KalilDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
David N GilbertDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Henry MasurCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Edward J SeptimusDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel A SweeneyDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California, USA.
Jeffrey R StrichCritical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Dean L WinslowDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Michael KlompasDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USHarvard University · USJohns Hopkins University · USOregon Health & Science University · USStanford University · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesSepsisShock, SepticAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansMedicareQuality Indicators, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial AgentsIDSASEP-1sepsisseptic shocksevere sepsis

Identifiers

PMID32374861
PMCPMC8189682
OpenAlexW3023620462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.