ArticleBMJ open2023
Validation of a paediatric sepsis screening tool to identify children with sepsis in the emergency department: a statewide prospective cohort study in Queensland, Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting sepsis treatment decisions in the paediatric emergency department using machine learning: the AiSEPTRON study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Observational
- Comparison of Random Forest and Stepwise Regression for Variable Selection Using Low Prevalence Predictors: A case Study in Paediatric Sepsis.Maternal and child health journal · 2025Article
- Identification of distinct clinical profiles of sepsis risk in paediatric emergency department patients using Bayesian profile regression.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- "You're listening but you're not hearing": qualitative exploration of parents' lived experience of paediatric sepsis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- A scoping review on pediatric sepsis prediction technologies in healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend the implementation of systematic screening for sepsis. We aimed to validate a paediatric sepsis screening tool and derive a simplified screening tool.
designProspective multicentre study conducted between August 2018 and December 2019. We assessed the performance of the paediatric sepsis screening tool using stepwise multiple logistic regression analyses with 10-fold cross-validation and evaluated the final model at defined risk thresholds.
settingTwelve emergency departments (EDs) in Queensland, Australia.
participants3473 children screened for sepsis, of which 523 (15.1%) were diagnosed with sepsis.
interventionsA 32-item paediatric sepsis screening tool including rapidly available information from triage, risk factors and targeted physical examination. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Senior medical officer-diagnosed sepsis combined with the administration of intravenous antibiotics in the ED.
resultsThe 32-item paediatric sepsis screening tool had good predictive performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.80, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.82). A simplified tool containing 16 of 32 criteria had comparable performance and retained an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.82). To reach a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 87% to 92%), the final model achieved a specificity of 51% (95% CI 49% to 53%). Sensitivity analyses using the outcomes of sepsis-associated organ dysfunction (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.87) and septic shock (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) confirmed the main results.
conclusionsA simplified paediatric sepsis screening tool performed well to identify children with sepsis in the ED. Implementation of sepsis screening tools may improve the timely recognition and treatment of sepsis.
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.