Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32691830›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of infectious diseases2020

Surveillance Strategies for Tracking Sepsis Incidence and Outcomes.

Claire N Shappell, Michael Klompas, Chanu Rhee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Sarcopenia and Mortality Risk of Patients with Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of clinical practice · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. SepsisJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Data Analysis will not Result in Knowledge Production about Sepsis.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. 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

3 authors.

Claire N ShappellDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael KlompasDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Chanu RheeDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Objective Evaluation of Variation in Sepsis Incidence, Mortality, and CareK08HS025008 · AHRQ · HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC. · PI RHEE, CHANU · 2017 to 2019
$450k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS025008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis is a leading cause of death and the target of intense efforts to improve recognition, management and outcomes. Accurate sepsis surveillance is essential to properly interpreting the impact of quality improvement initiatives, making meaningful comparisons across hospitals and geographic regions, and guiding future research and resource investments. However, it is challenging to reliably track sepsis incidence and outcomes because sepsis is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome without a pathologic reference standard, allowing for subjectivity and broad discretion in assigning diagnoses. Most epidemiologic studies of sepsis to date have used hospital discharge codes and have suggested dramatic increases in sepsis incidence and decreases in mortality rates over time. However, diagnosis and coding practices vary widely between hospitals and are changing over time, complicating the interpretation of absolute rates and trends. Other surveillance approaches include death records, prospective clinical registries, retrospective medical record reviews, and analyses of the usual care arms of randomized controlled trials. Each of these strategies, however, has substantial limitations. Recently, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released an "Adult Sepsis Event" definition that uses objective clinical indicators of infection and organ dysfunction that can be extracted from most hospitals' electronic health record systems. Emerging data suggest that electronic health record-based clinical surveillance, such as surveillance of Adult Sepsis Event, is accurate, can be applied uniformly across diverse hospitals, and generates more credible estimates of sepsis trends than administrative data. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of different sepsis surveillance strategies and consider future directions.

Indexed as

SepsisAdultClinical Trials as TopicDeath CertificatesElectronic Health RecordsHumansIncidencePopulation SurveillanceQuality ImprovementRegistriesTreatment OutcomeAdult Sepsis Eventepidemiologysepsissurveillancetrends

Identifiers

PMID32691830
PMCPMC9011360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.