ArticleInfection2024
Sepsis incidence, suspicion, prediction and mortality in emergency medical services: a cohort study related to the current international sepsis guideline.
Article in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Nurse-Led Triage in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Sepsis and Septic Shock Among Patients with Documented Fever at Emergency Department Triage Using Patients' Historical Data.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Mapping the evolution of sepsis and intestinal epithelial barrier research: a bibliometric analysis (1977-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The evolution of sepsis care: from protocol-driven management to personalized intensive care.Infection · 2026Review
- From bench to triage: diagnostic utility of delta-like canonical notch ligand-1 (DLL-1) for early sepsis prediction in the emergency department.Infection · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pre-hospital emergency medical care practitioners regarding sepsis recognition: a cross-sectional study in Qatar.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Prioritizing the patient through a continuum of personalized care: insights from the 2026 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Cytokine-mediated, organ-specific immune modulation and dysregulation of innate lymphocytes in sepsis.Seminars in immunopathology · 2026Review
- Angiotensin-(1-7) suppresses pyroptosis in cerebral endothelium to decrease blood-brain barrier permeability and cognitive impairments in sepsis.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- The Role of Perceived Urgency and Barriers in Using Emergency Medical Care for Sepsis: A German-Wide, Representative Survey Using Case Vignettes.Critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Early Identification of Sepsis by Emergency Medical Services: Diagnostic Accuracy of Scoring Systems in a Retrospective Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [Risk factors associated with inadequacy of empirical treatment in patients with sepsis and bacteremia attended in an emergency department].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Observational
- Recent advances in early screening and diagnosis of sepsis: a narrative review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- A Real-Time Prospective Evaluation of the Prognostic Accuracy of SIRS, MEWS, NEWS2 and qSOFA in Predicting ICU Admission and Mortality in an Emergency Department: Implications for Nursing Practice.Nursing in critical care · 2026Observational
- Rethinking post-sepsis syndrome: linking cellular dysfunction to the clinical picture.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Performance of Early Sepsis Screening Tools for Timely Diagnosis and Antibiotic Stewardship in a Resource-Limited Thai Community Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Gas necrosis and sepsis due to recreational ketamine use.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2025Article
- Sepsis and post-sepsis syndrome: a multisystem challenge requiring comprehensive care and management-a review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Elevated Serum KIM-1 in Sepsis Correlates with Kidney Dysfunction and the Severity of Multi-Organ Critical Illness.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSepsis suspicion by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is associated with improved patient outcomes. This study assessed sepsis incidence and recognition by EMS and analyzed which of the screening tools recommended by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign best facilitates sepsis prediction.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of claims data from health insurances (n = 221,429 EMS cases), and paramedics' and emergency physicians' EMS documentation (n = 110,419); analyzed outcomes were: sepsis incidence and case fatality compared to stroke and myocardial infarction, the extent of documentation for screening-relevant variables and sepsis suspicion, tools' intersections for screening positive in identical EMS cases and their predictive ability for an inpatient sepsis diagnosis.
resultsIncidence of sepsis (1.6%) was similar to myocardial infarction (2.6%) and stroke (2.7%); however, 30-day case fatality rate was almost threefold higher (31.7% vs. 13.4%; 11.8%). Complete vital sign documentation was achieved in 8.2% of all cases. Paramedics never, emergency physicians rarely (0.1%) documented a sepsis suspicion, respectively septic shock. NEWS2 had the highest sensitivity (73.1%; Specificity:81.6%) compared to qSOFA (23.1%; Sp:96.6%), SIRS (28.2%; Sp:94.3%) and MEWS (48.7%; Sp:88.1%). Depending on the tool, 3.7% to 19.4% of all cases screened positive; only 0.8% in all tools simultaneously.
conclusionIncidence and mortality underline the need for better sepsis awareness, documentation of vital signs and use of screening tools. Guidelines may omit MEWS and SIRS as recommendations for prehospital providers since they were inferior in all accuracy measures. Though no tool performed ideally, NEWS2 qualifies as the best tool to predict the highest proportion of septic patients and to rule out cases that are likely non-septic.
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.