ArticleCritical care explorations2022
New, Useful Criteria for Assessing the Evidence of Infection in Sepsis Research.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cohort profile of PLUTO: a perioperative biobank focusing on prediction and early diagnosis of postoperative complications.BMJ open · 2023Trial
- Observational
- Explainable AI identifies key biomarkers for acute kidney injury prediction in the ICU.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
- Protocolized REDUction of Non-Resuscitation Fluids in SEptic Shock Patients. A Protocol for the REDUSE Randomized Clinical Trial.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Calprotectin as a sepsis diagnostic marker in critical care: a retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Association of LVV-Hemorphin-7 with Sepsis and Shock: Roles of Cathepsin D and G in Hemoglobin Metabolism in a Prospective ICU Cohort Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Understanding the value of monocyte distribution width (MDW) in acutely ill medical patients presenting to the emergency department: a prospective single center evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sepsis mimics among presumed sepsis patients at intensive care admission: a retrospective observational study.Infection · 2024Observational
- Estimating Sepsis Incidence Using Administrative Data and Clinical Medical Record Review.JAMA network open · 2023Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.