Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38381351›Full record

Trial reportInternal and emergency medicine2024

Real-time machine learning-assisted sepsis alert enhances the timeliness of antibiotic administration and diagnostic accuracy in emergency department patients with sepsis: a cluster-randomized trial.

Norawit Kijpaisalratana, Jutamas Saoraya, Padcha Nhuboonkaew, Komsanti Vongkulbhisan, Khrongwong Musikatavorn

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Current standard of care for septic shock.Intensive care medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

5 authors.

Norawit KijpaisalratanaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jutamas SaorayaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Padcha NhuboonkaewDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Komsanti VongkulbhisanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Khrongwong MusikatavornDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. khrongwong.m@chulahospital.org.ORCID 0000-0002-5746-0724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has been applied in sepsis recognition across different healthcare settings with outstanding diagnostic accuracy. However, the advantage of ML-assisted sepsis alert in expediting clinical decisions leading to enhanced quality for emergency department (ED) patients remains unclear. A cluster-randomized trial was conducted in a tertiary-care hospital. Adult patient data were subjected to an ML model for sepsis alert. Patient visits were assigned into one of two groups. In the intervention cluster, staff received alerts on a display screen if patients met the ML threshold for sepsis diagnosis, while patients in the control cluster followed the regular alert process. The study compared triage-to-antibiotic (TTA) time, length of stay, and mortality rate between the two groups. Additionally, the diagnostic performance of the ML model was assessed. A total of 256 (intervention) and 318 (control) sepsis patients were analyzed. The proportions of patients who received antibiotics within 1 and 3 h were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (in 1 h; 68.4 vs. 60.1%, respectively; P = 0.04, in 3 h; 94.5 vs. 89.0%, respectively; P = 0.02). The median TTA times were marginally shorter in the intervention group (46 vs. 50 min). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ML in early sepsis identification was significantly higher than qSOFA, SIRS, and MEWS. The ML-assisted sepsis alert system may help sepsis ED patients receive antibiotics more rapidly than with the conventional, human-dedicated alert process. The diagnostic performance of ML in prompt sepsis detection was superior to that of the rule-based system.Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20230120001. Registered 16 January 2023-Retrospectively registered, https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20230120001 .

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsEmergency Service, HospitalMachine LearningSepsisAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTriageAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticEmergency departmentMachine learningPredictionSepsis

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.