Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284425›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2023

Rapid identification of sepsis in the emergency department.

Chadd K Kraus, H Bryant Nguyen, Ryan C Jacobsen, Nathan A Ledeboer, Larissa S May, Hollis R O'Neal, Michael A Puskarich, Todd W Rice, Wesley H Self, Richard E Rothman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Rapid identification of sepsis in the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2023
    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 at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Chadd K KrausDepartment of Emergency Medicine Geisinger Medical Center Danville Pennsylvania USA.
H Bryant NguyenDepartment of Medicine Pulmonary and Critical Care Division Loma Linda University Loma Linda California USA.
Ryan C JacobsenDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Kansas Hospital Kansas City Kansas USA.
Nathan A LedeboerDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee Wisconsin USA.
Larissa S MayDepartment of Emergency Medicine UC Davis Health Davis California USA.
Hollis R O'NealDepartment of Critical Care Medicine Louisiana State University Baton Rouge Louisiana USA.
Michael A PuskarichDepartment of Emergency Medicine Hennepin County Medical Center University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USA.
Todd W RiceVanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences and Division of Allergy Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville Tennessee USA.
Wesley H SelfVanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences and Department of Emergency Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville Tennessee USA.
Richard E RothmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland USA.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USGeisinger Medical Center · USHennepin County Medical Center · USJohns Hopkins University · USLoma Linda University · USLouisiana State University · USMedical College of Wisconsin · USThe University of Kansas Health System · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Recent research has helped define the complex pathways in sepsis, affording new opportunities for advancing diagnostics tests. Given significant advances in the field, a group of academic investigators from emergency medicine, intensive care, pathology, and pharmacology assembled to develop consensus around key gaps and potential future use for emerging rapid host response diagnostics assays in the emergency department (ED) setting. Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted that included 26 panelists (expert consensus panel) from multiple specialties. A smaller steering committee first defined a list of Delphi statements related to the need for and future potential use of a hypothetical sepsis diagnostic test in the ED. Likert scoring was used to assess panelists agreement or disagreement with statements. Two successive rounds of surveys were conducted and consensus for statements was operationally defined as achieving agreement or disagreement of 75% or greater. Results: Significant gaps were identified related to current tools for assessing risk of sepsis in the ED. Strong consensus indicated the need for a test providing an indication of the severity of dysregulated host immune response, which would be helpful even if it did not identify the specific pathogen. Although there was a relatively high degree of uncertainty regarding which patients would most benefit from the test, the panel agreed that an ideal host response sepsis test should aim to be integrated into ED triage and thus should produce results in less than 30 minutes. The panel also agreed that such a test would be most valuable for improving sepsis outcomes and reducing rates of unnecessary antibiotic use. Conclusion: The expert consensus panel expressed strong consensus regarding gaps in sepsis diagnostics in the ED and the potential for new rapid host response tests to help fill these gaps. These finding provide a baseline framework for assessing key attributes of evolving host response diagnostic tests for sepsis in the ED.

Indexed as

consensusDelphi studydiagnostic testingsepsis

Identifiers

PMID37284425
PMCPMC10239543
OpenAlexW4379259006

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.