ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2023
Validation of an ICD-Based Algorithm to Identify Sepsis: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance of Early Sepsis Screening Tools for Timely Diagnosis and Antibiotic Stewardship in a Resource-Limited Thai Community Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Background: Sepsis surveillance was important for resources allocation, prevention, and development of health policy. Objective: The aim of the study was to validate a modified International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 based algorithm for identifying hospitalized patients with sepsis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a prospective, single-center cohort of adult patients who were consecutively admitted to one medical ICU ward and ten non-ICU wards with suspected or confirmed infections during a 6-month period. A modified ICD-10 based algorithm was validated against a reference standard of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score based on Sepsis-3. Sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were calculated for modified ICD-10 criteria, eSOFA criteria, Martin's criteria, and Angus's criteria. Results: Of the 547 patients in the cohort, 332 (61%) patients met Sepsis-3 criteria and 274 (50%) met modified ICD-10 criteria. In the ICU setting, modified ICD-10 criteria had SE (84.47%), SP (88.57%), PPV (95.60), and NPV (65.96). In non-ICU settings, modified ICD-10 had SE (64.19%), SP (80.00%), PPV (80.33), and NPV (63.72). In the whole cohort, the AUROCs of modified ICD-10 criteria, eSOFA, Angus's criteria, and Martin's criteria were 0.76, 0.75, 0.62, and 0.62, respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that modified ICD-10 criteria had higher validity compared with Angus's criteria and Martin's criteria. Validity of the modified ICD-10 criteria was similar to eSOFA criteria. Modified ICD-10 algorithm can be used to provide an accurate estimate of population-based sepsis burden of China.
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.