ArticleBMJ open2024
Sepsis policy, guidelines and standards in Canada: a jurisdictional scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Sepsis policy, guidelines, and standards in Canada: a jurisdictional scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Reducing the burden of preventable deaths from sepsis in Canada: A need for a national sepsis action plan.Healthcare management forum · 2024Article
- RADAR-ES: A Methodological Framework for Conducting Environmental Scans in Health Services Delivery Research.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo our knowledge, this study is the first to identify and describe current sepsis policies, clinical practice guidelines, and health professional training standards in Canada to inform evidence-based policy recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be designed and reported according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Turning Research Into Practice and Policy Commons will be searched for policies, clinical practice guidelines and health professional training standards published or updated in 2010 onwards, and related to the identification, management or reporting of sepsis in Canada. Additional sources of evidence will be identified by searching the websites of Canadian organisations responsible for regulating the training of healthcare professionals and reporting health outcomes. All potentially eligible sources of evidence will be reviewed for inclusion, followed by data extraction, independently and in duplicate. The included policies will be collated and summarised to inform future evidence-based sepsis policy recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed study does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at local, national and international forums.
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.