ArticleScientific reports2024
The prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism complicating sepsis and septic shock: a national inpatient sample analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Mortality in Pulmonary Embolism: A Machine Learning Approach with External Validation in COVID-19 Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: Multicenter Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Current Trends in Venous Thromboprophylaxis for Inpatient Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Risk Factors for Sepsis and Pulmonary Embolism Mortality in Burn Patients by Using a Competing Risk Model: A Machine Learning Approach.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of direct oral anticoagulant continuation versus switching to a parenteral anticoagulant in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study.Thrombosis journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of pulmonary embolism in patients diagnosed with sepsis with and without shock. The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify adults with sepsis with and without shock between 2017 and 2019. The prevalence of acute pulmonary embolism and the association of acute pulmonary embolism with in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay for survivors, and overall costs of hospitalization were evaluated. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses, adjusted for various parameters, were used to explore these associations. Of the estimated 5,019,369 sepsis hospitalizations, 1.2% of patients with sepsis without shock and 2.3% of patients with septic shock developed pulmonary embolism. The odds ratio for in-hospital mortality was 1.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85-2.03, p < 0.001). The coefficient for hospital length of stay was 3.24 (95% CI 3.03-3.45, p < 0.001). The coefficient for total costs was 46,513 (95% CI 43,079-49,947, p < 0.001). The prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients diagnosed with sepsis with and without shock was 1.2 and 2.3%, respectively. Acute pulmonary embolism was associated with higher in-hospital mortality, longer hospital length of stay for survivors, and higher overall costs of hospitalization.
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.