ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Return to work after sepsis-a German population-based health claims study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The cost of dengue shock and septic shock in Vietnam: a patient-centred economic analysis.International health · 2026Observational
- Article
- "Lost in Transition": Informational Needs of Sepsis Survivors and Their Relatives Across the Care Trajectory-A Qualitative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Transitional care after hospitalization for sepsis in Germany- results from the population-based AVENIR cohort study.Infection · 2025Article
- Labour market attachment before and after hospitalisation for sepsis: a Danish cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study Exploring the Rehabilitation Experience of Individuals with a Previous Diagnosis of Cancer and/or Sepsis, Their Caregivers, and Health Providers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Societal costs of sepsis in the Netherlands.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Return to work after hospitalization for sepsis: a nationwide, registry-based cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Long-term impairments after sepsis can impede the return to work in survivors. We aimed to describe rates of return to work 6 and 12 months postsepsis. Methods: This retrospective, population-based cohort study was based on health claims data of the German AOK health insurance of 23.0 million beneficiaries. We included 12-months survivors after hospital-treated sepsis in 2013/2014, who were ≤60 years at the time of the admission and were working in the year presepsis. We assessed the prevalence of return to work (RTW), persistent inability to work and early retirement. Results: Among 7,370 working age sepsis survivors, 69.2% returned to work at 6 months postsepsis, while 22.8% were on sick leave and 8.0% retired early. At 12 months postsepsis, the RTW rate increased to 76.9%, whereas 9.8% were still on sick leave and 13.3% retired early. Survivors who returned to work had a mean of 70 (SD 93) sick leave days in the 12 months presepsis (median 28 days, IQR 108 days). Conclusion: One out of four working age sepsis survivors does not resume work in the year postsepsis. Specific rehabilitation and targeted aftercare may be opportunities to reduce barriers to RTW after 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.