Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35620771›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2022

New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research.

Lisa Mellhammar, Sixten Elén, Simone Ehrhard, Hjalmar Bouma, Lorenz Ninck, Eva Muntjewerff, Daniel Wünsch, Frank Bloos, Erik Malmström, Adam Linder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. 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

10 authors.

Lisa MellhammarDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Infection Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Sixten ElénDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Infection Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Simone EhrhardDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselpital, University Hospital University of Bern, Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Hjalmar BoumaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Lorenz NinckDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselpital, University Hospital University of Bern, Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Eva MuntjewerffDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Daniel WünschDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Frank BloosDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Erik MalmströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Infection Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Adam LinderDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Division of Infection Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Sepsis-3 definition states the clinical criteria for sepsis but lacks clear definitions of the underlying infection. To address the lack of applicable definitions of infection for sepsis research, we propose new criteria, termed the Linder-Mellhammar criteria of infection (LMCI). The aim of this study was to validate these new infection criteria.

designA multicenter cohort study of patients with suspected infection who were admitted to emergency departments or ICUs. Data were collected from medical records and from study investigators.

settingFour academic hospitals in Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: A total of 934 adult patients with suspected infection or suspected sepsis.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsAgreement of infection site classification was measured using the LMCI with Cohen κ coefficient, compared with the Calandra and Cohen definitions of infection and diagnosis on hospital discharge as references. In one of the cohorts, comparisons were also made to adjudications by an expert panel. A subset of patients was assessed for interobserver agreement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe precision of the LMCI varied according to the applied reference. LMCI performed better than the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.62 [95% CI, 0.59-0.65] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39-0.47], respectively) and the diagnosis on hospital discharge (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53-0.61] vs κ = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.39-0.47], respectively). The interobserver agreement for the LMCI was evaluated in 91 patients, with agreement in 77%, κ = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60-0.85). When tested with adjudication as the gold standard, the LMCI still outperformed the Calandra and Cohen definitions (κ = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.70] vs κ = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.24-0.33], respectively).

conclusionsThe LMCI is useful criterion of infection that is intended for sepsis research, in and outside of the ICU. Useful criteria for infection have the potential to facilitate more comparable sepsis research and exclude sepsis mimics from clinical studies, thus improving and simplifying sepsis research.

Indexed as

definitionsdiagnosisinfectious disease medicinesepsis

Identifiers

PMID35620771
PMCPMC9116943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.