SynthesisJournal of patient safety2020
The Use of Patient Monitoring Systems to Improve Sepsis Recognition and Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of patient safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of manual sepsis screening in hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Implementation of patient safety monitoring systems in hospitals: a systematic review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Pooled it
- The Usefulness of Carotid Artery Doppler Measurement as a Predictor of Early Death in Sepsis Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Closed-Loop Medication Management with an Electronic Health Record System in U.S. and Finnish Hospitals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of automated patient monitoring systems (PMSs) on sepsis recognition and outcomes.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted using CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane, for articles published from 2008 through 2018. English-language, peer-reviewed articles that reported the impact of PMS on sepsis care were included. For selected articles, the authors abstracted information, with the study designed to be compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
resultsNineteen articles were identified for inclusion: 4 systematic reviews and 15 individual studies. Study design and quality varied, with some randomized controlled trials and quasiexperimental studies, as well as many observational studies. Study results for outcome measures (e.g., mortality, intensive care unit [ICU] length of stay, ICU transfer) were mixed, with more than half of the studies showing a significant improvement in at least one measure. Evidence for process measure (e.g., time to antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, etc.) improvement was of moderate strength across multiple types of hospital units, and evidence was most consistent outside the ICU.
conclusionsAutomated sepsis PMSs have the potential to improve sepsis recognition and outcomes, but current evidence is mixed on their effectiveness. More high-quality studies are needed to understand the effects of PMSs on important sepsis-related process and outcome measures in different hospital units.
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.