Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351432›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2022

[SEPSIS-3.0-Is intensive care medicine ready for ICD-11?]

Thomas Schmoch, Michael Bernhard, Andrea Becker-Pennrich, Ludwig Christian Hinske, Josef Briegel, Patrick Möhnle, Thorsten Brenner, Markus A Weigand, SepNet Study Group

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas SchmochKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland. thomas.schmoch@uk-essen.de.
Michael BernhardZentrale Notaufnahme, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Andrea Becker-PennrichKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Zelltherapeutika und Hämostaseologie (ATMZH), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Klinikum München, München, Deutschland.
Ludwig Christian HinskeKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Zelltherapeutika und Hämostaseologie (ATMZH), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Klinikum München, München, Deutschland.
Josef BriegelKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Zelltherapeutika und Hämostaseologie (ATMZH), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Klinikum München, München, Deutschland.
Patrick MöhnleKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Abteilung für Transfusionsmedizin, Zelltherapeutika und Hämostaseologie (ATMZH), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Klinikum München, München, Deutschland.
Thorsten BrennerKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland.
Markus A WeigandKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
SepNet Study Group
LMU Klinikum · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEEssen University Hospital · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) will come into effect in January 2022. Among other things, The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (SEPSIS‑3 definition) will be implemented in it. This defines sepsis as a "life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection". The aim of the present secondary analysis of a survey on the topic of "sepsis-induced coagulopathy" was to evaluate whether the SEPSIS‑3 definition, 4 years after its international introduction, has arrived in everyday clinical practice of intensive care units (ICU) run by anesthesiologists in Germany and thus the requirements for its use of the ICD-11 are given.

methodsBetween October 2019 and May 2020, we carried out a nationwide survey among German medical directors of ICUs. In a separate block of questions we asked about the definition of sepsis used in daily practice. In addition, we asked whether the quick-sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is used in screening for sepsis in the hospital to which to the participating ICU belongs.

resultsA total of 50 medical directors from anesthesiological ICUs took part in the survey. In total, the ICUs evaluated stated that they had around 14% of the high-care beds registered in Germany. The SEPSIS‑3 definition is integrated into everyday clinical practice at 78.9% of the university hospitals and 84.0% of the participating teaching hospitals. In contrast, the qSOFA screening test is only used by 26.3% of the participating university hospitals, but at least 52% of the teaching hospitals and 80% of the other hospitals.

conclusionThe data show that both SEPSIS‑3 and qSOFA have become part of everyday clinical practice in German hospitals. The cautious use of qSOFA at university hospitals with simultaneous broad acceptance of the SEPSIS‑3 definition can be interpreted as an indication that the search for a suitable screening test for sepsis has not yet been completed.

Indexed as

International Classification of DiseasesSepsisCritical CareGermanyHumansIntensive Care UnitsOrgan Dysfunction ScoresEncodingInfectionQSOFASepsis definitionsSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34351432
PMCPMC8807467
OpenAlexW3190644476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.