Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38280062›Full record

Observational studyInfection2024

Sepsis mimics among presumed sepsis patients at intensive care admission: a retrospective observational study.

Maria Lengquist, Anjali Varadarajan, Shiva Alestam, Hans Friberg, Attila Frigyesi, Lisa Mellhammar

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Maria LengquistDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. maria.lengquist@med.lu.se.
Anjali VaradarajanDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Shiva AlestamDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Hans FribergDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Attila FrigyesiDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lisa MellhammarDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Crafoord Foundation 2021-0833Governmental funding of clinical research within the Swedish National Health Service (ALF) 2022:YF0009, 2022-0075Regional research support, Region Skåne 2021-0907Regional research support, Region Skåne 2022-1284Swedish Heart and Lund Foundation (HLF) 2022-0352, 2022-0458
6 · The paper itself

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

Intensive Care UnitsSepsisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSwedenBiomarkersC-reactive proteinCritical careInfectionsLeukocytesSepsisSepticShock

Identifiers

PMID38280062
PMCPMC11636973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.