ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
Diagnosis of sepsis in the emergency department: a real-world analysis from Lombardy, Italy.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the 2024 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence sepsis guideline for adults against the 2016 guidelines: a service evaluation.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- The Ability of NEWS2 to Detect Sepsis in Adult Patients With Positive Blood Cultures.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early identification of sepsis is particularly important in the emergency department (ED). However, data on the diagnosis of sepsis in the ED are scanty, especially within the Italian context. To quantify sepsis incidence and recognition in the ED from Lombardy, Italy, we used EUOL data from the Regional Emergency Agency for the years 2017-2022. Sepsis was identified based on the ED discharge diagnosis; recognized sepsis cases were those assigned to a high-priority code at triage, while unrecognized ones were those assigned to a low priority code. Odds ratios (ORs) for sepsis recognition according to various patient characteristics were estimated using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models. The rate of sepsis diagnosis in ED was 1.9 per 1000 (6626 patients) in 2017 and increased to 3.4 per 1000 in 2022 (11,508 patients). In 2022, 67% of sepsis cases were correctly identified. Death in the ED was more frequent in patients with recognized sepsis (10.4%) than in those with unrecognized sepsis (2.3%). The probability of sepsis being recognized at ED admission was higher in men (multivariable OR: 1.06), in individuals with advanced age (OR: 1.71 for age ≥ 90 years vs < 60), and in those with access to the second (OR: 1.48) and third ED level (OR: 1.87). Conversely, it was lower in patients arriving at the ED through autonomous transportation (OR: 0.36). This large real-world analysis indicates an increase in sepsis cases referred to the ED in recent years. About one-third of sepsis cases are not correctly identified at triage, although more severe cases appear to be promptly recognized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37938481What 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.