ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2021
The Available Criteria for Different Sepsis Scoring Systems in the Emergency Department-A Retrospective Assessment.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- GSTP1 as a novel protective target in sepsis: evidence from proteome-wide Mendelian randomization and multi-omics analyses.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A Real-Time Prospective Evaluation of the Prognostic Accuracy of SIRS, MEWS, NEWS2 and qSOFA in Predicting ICU Admission and Mortality in an Emergency Department: Implications for Nursing Practice.Nursing in critical care · 2026Observational
- Improved Interpretability Without Performance Reduction in a Sepsis Prediction Risk Score.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Navigating the Complexity of Scoring Systems in Sepsis Management: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Classifying sepsis from photoplethysmography.Health information science and systems · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of the study was to assess the criteria availability of eight sepsis scoring methods within 6 hours of triage in the emergency department (ED).
designRetrospective data analysis study.
settingED of MedStar Washington Hospital Center (MWHC), a 912-bed urban, tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients presenting to the MWHC ED between June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018 and admitted with a diagnosis of severe sepsis with or without shock. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED: Availability of sepsis scoring criteria of eight different sepsis scoring methods at three time points-0 Hours (T0), 3 Hours (T1) and 6 Hours (T2) after arrival to the ED.
resultsA total of 50 charts were reviewed, which included 23 (46%) males and 27 (54%) females. Forty-eight patients (96%) were Black or African American. Glasgow Coma Scale was available for all 50 patients at T0. Vital signs, except for temperature, were readily available (>90%) at T0. The majority of laboratory values relevant for sepsis scoring criteria were available (>90%) at T1, with exception to bilirubin (66%) and creatinine (80%). NEWS, PRESEP and qSOFA had greater than 90% criteria availability at triage. SOFA and SIRS consistently had the least percent of available criteria at all time points in the ED.
conclusionThe availability of patient data at different time points in a patient's ED visit suggests that different scoring methods could be utilized to assess for sepsis as more patient information becomes available.
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.