ArticleCureus2024
Recognition and Awareness of Sepsis by First-Aid Providers in Adults With Suspected Infection: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early Identification of Sepsis by Emergency Medical Services: Diagnostic Accuracy of Scoring Systems in a Retrospective Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis accounts for a significant proportion of preventable deaths worldwide and early treatment has been found to be a mainstay of decreasing mortality. Early identification of sepsis in the first-aid setting is critical as this results in a shorter time to hospital presentation and management with antibiotics and initial resuscitation. Our aim was to explore the existing literature related to either sepsis recognition or awareness of sepsis by first-aid providers who are evaluating an adult suspected of an acute infection. Our scoping review was performed as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's (ILCOR) continuous evidence evaluation process to update the 2024 ILCOR Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from their inception to January 17, 2023, with updated searches performed on November 21, 2023, and December 2, 2023. The gray literature search was conducted on August 29, 2023. The population included adults presenting with an acute illness exhibiting signs and symptoms of a severe infection. Outcomes included sepsis recognition or awareness of sepsis by a lay first-aid provider. After reviewing 4380 potential sources, four reviews (three systematic reviews and one scoping review), 11 observational studies, and 27 websites met the inclusion criteria. No study directly addressed our PICOST (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design, and Timeframe) question as none were performed in the first-aid setting. Three systematic reviews and nine observational studies that assessed the ability of early warning scores to detect sepsis and predict adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis had inconsistent results, but many found the screening tools to be useful. One scoping review and one observational study found public knowledge and awareness of sepsis to be variable and dependent upon healthcare employment, location, education level, ethnicity, sex, and age. Signs and symptoms associated with sepsis as listed by gray literature sources fell primarily under nine general categories as a means of educating the public on sepsis recognition. Although this scoping review did not identify any studies that directly addressed our outcomes, it highlights the need for future research to better understand the recognition of sepsis in first-aid settings.
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.