Observational studyInfection2024
Sepsis mimics among presumed sepsis patients at intensive care admission: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic performance and antibiotic impact of droplet digital PCR in suspected sepsis: the PROGRESS trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Sequential Application of Time-Stratified Demographic, Vital, Clinical-Laboratory, and Microbiology Variables for Accurate and Rapid Identification of Sepsis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Vasopressor Dosing Trajectories in Septic Shock According to Initial Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Infection Source Concordance: A Retrospective Observational Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Likelihood of Bacterial Infection in Immunocompromised Patients Treated With IV Antibiotics for Possible Sepsis.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- A predictive model for PICC-related thrombosis in sepsis patients using XGBoost algorithm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Rethinking sepsis prediction in the era of large language models.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Data-driven spatial-temporal framework for exploring the heterogeneity and temporality of sepsis.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Observational
- Antibiotic Consumption in Danish Intensive Care Units, 2013-2023: A Nationwide Study of Temporal Trends.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Observational
- Calprotectin as a sepsis diagnostic marker in critical care: a retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Sepsis: key insights, future directions, and immediate goals. A review and expert opinion.Intensive care medicine · 2024Review
- Rapid and Robust Identification of Sepsis Using SeptiCyte RAPID in a Heterogeneous Patient Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Generalized pustular psoriasis of the 'von Zumbusch'-type: a sepsis mimic with low PCT values.Infection · 2024Article
- Infection on Frail Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Insights From the PalMuSIC Study.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing sepsis remains a challenge because of the lack of gold-standard diagnostics. Since there are no simple, broadly accepted criteria for infection, there is a risk of misclassifying sepsis patients (sepsis mimics) among patients with organ failure. The main objective of this study was to investigate the proportion of non-infected patients (sepsis mimics) in ICU patients with presumed sepsis at intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
methodsAdult patients were screened retrospectively during 3.5 years in four ICUs in Sweden for fulfilment of the sepsis-3 criteria at ICU admission (presumed sepsis). Proxy criteria for suspected infection were sampled blood culture(s) and concomitant antibiotic administration. Culture-negative presumed sepsis patients were screened for infection according to the Linder-Mellhammar Criteria of Infection (LMCI). Sepsis mimics were defined as without probable infection according to the LMCI. Confirmed sepsis was defined as presumed sepsis after the exclusion of sepsis mimics.
resultsIn the ICU presumed sepsis cohort (2664 patients), 25% were considered sepsis mimics. The most common reasons for ICU admission among sepsis mimics were acute heart failure and unspecific respiratory failure. Comparing sepsis mimics and confirmed sepsis showed that confirmed sepsis patients were slightly more severely ill but had similar mortality. C-reactive protein had modest discriminatory power (AUROC 0.71) with confirmed sepsis as the outcome.
conclusionsOne-fourth of a presumed ICU sepsis population identified with the sepsis-3 criteria could be considered sepsis mimics. The high proportion of sepsis mimics has a potential dilutional effect on the presumed sepsis population, which threatens the validity of results from sepsis studies using recommended sepsis criteria.
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.