ArticleBMJ open2023
Use of healthcare before and after sepsis in Sweden: a case-control study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prehospital lactate analysis in suspected sepsis improves detection of patients with increased mortality risk: an observational study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Long-term Mortality and Hospital Readmissions Among Survivors of Sepsis in Sweden: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Hospital Acquired Sepsis, Disease Prevalence, and Recent Advances in Sepsis Mitigation.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Understanding Post-Sepsis Syndrome: How Can Clinicians Help?Infection and drug resistance · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare readmissions and death between sepsis and non-sepsis hospitalisations the first year after discharge, and to investigate what diagnoses patients with sepsis present with at readmission. The aim was also to evaluate to what degree patients hospitalised for sepsis seek medical attention prior to hospitalisation.
designRetrospective case-control study with data validated through clinical chart review. A disproportionate stratified sampling model was used to include a relatively larger number of sepsis hospitalisations.
settingAll eight public hospitals in region Scania, Sweden (1 January to 3 December 2019).
participantsThere were 447 patients hospitalised for sepsis (cases), and 541 hospitalised for other causes (control) identified through clinical chart review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cox regression was used to analyse readmission and death the year after discharge, and logistic regression was used to analyse healthcare the week prior to hospitalisation. Both analyses were made unadjusted, and adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities.
resultsOut of patients who survived a sepsis hospitalisation, 48% were readmitted the year after discharge, compared with 39% for patients without sepsis (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.19), p=0.04. The majority (52%) of readmissions occurred within 90 days and 75% within 180 days. The readmissions were most often caused by infection (32%), and 18% by cardiovascular disease. Finally, 34% of patients with sepsis had sought prehospital contact with a physician the week before hospitalisation, compared with 22% for patients without sepsis (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.04), p=0.03.
conclusionPatients hospitalised for sepsis had a higher risk of readmission the year after discharge compared with patients without sepsis. The most common diagnoses at readmission were infection followed by cardiovascular disease. With better follow-up, some of these readmissions could potentially be prevented. Patients hospitalised for sepsis had sought prehospital contact the week prior to hospitalisation to a greater extent than patients without 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.