Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37938481›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024

Diagnosis of sepsis in the emergency department: a real-world analysis from Lombardy, Italy.

Cristina Bosetti, Claudia Santucci, Fabiola Signorini, Francesca Cortellaro, Giorgia Villa, Carlotta Rossi, Giovanni Nattino, Guido Bertolini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. The Ability of NEWS2 to Detect Sepsis in Adult Patients With Positive Blood Cultures.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Cristina BosettiLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy. cristina.bosetti@marionegri.it.ORCID 0000-0003-2090-4608
Claudia SantucciLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Fabiola SignoriniLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Francesca CortellaroAREU-Urgency Emergency Regional Agency, Milan, MI, Italy.
Giorgia VillaLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Carlotta RossiLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni NattinoLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Guido BertoliniLaboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri, 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

SepsisAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalHospitalizationHumansItalyMaleOdds RatioRetrospective StudiesTriageEarly diagnosisEmergency departmentItalyReal-world dataSepsisTriage

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.