ArticlePloS one2020
Sepsis recording in primary care electronic health records, linked hospital episodes and mortality records: Population-based cohort study in England.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations. METHODS AND
findingsCohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002-2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording. There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis. Those diagnosed during 2007:2011 were less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012-2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75-11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87-9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86-18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96-14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources.
conclusionExplicit recording of 'sepsis' is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.
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.