Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2025
SEPSIGN: early identification of sepsis signs in emergency department.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in early detection and prognostication of sepsis: new approaches from the emergency department and intensive care unit.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Awareness and management of sepsis among emergency medicine practitioners in China: a national cross-sectional study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Early Sepsis Detection in Adult Patients with Suspected Sepsis in an Emergency Setting: A Sequential Strategy of Monocyte Distribution Width and Presepsin.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because 20-30% of patients with sepsis deteriorate to critical illness, biomarkers that provide accurate early prognosis may identify which patients need more intensive treatment versus safe early discharge. The objective was to test the performance of sVEGFR2, suPAR and PCT, alone or combined with clinical signs and symptoms, for the prediction of clinical deterioration. This prospective observational study enrolled patients with suspected infection who met SIRS criteria without organ dysfunction (delta SOFA <2 from baseline) from 16 emergency departments. The primary endpoint was clinical deterioration (increased SOFA score ≥2 points, new or increased organ support, or death) within 72 hours of enrollment. Diagnosis and classification of infection status were adjudicated. 724 patients were enrolled, (54% men, median age 55 [38-70] y-o). Infection origin was abdominopelvic (21%), skin and soft tissues (17%), urinary (16%) and pulmonary (15%). 176 (24%) patients deteriorated, with a 28-day mortality of 1.4%. They had lower sVEGFR2 level (6.17 [5.00-7.40] vs 6.52 [5.40-7.84], p=0.024), higher circulating suPAR (5.25 [3.86-7.50] vs 4.18 [3.16-5.68], p<0.001) and higher PCT level (0.32 [0.08-1.80] vs 0.18 [0.05-0.98], p=0.004). suPAR demonstrated superior performance (AUC=0.65 [0.60-0.70]), compared to other biomarkers (PCT, AUC=0.57 [0.52-0.62] and sVEGFR2, AUC=0.58 [0.53-0.64]). Maximum accuracy was achieved from the combination of clinical information, sVEGFR2 and suPAR, yielding an AUC of 0.74 [0.69-0.78] and NPV 0.90 [0.88-0.94]. sVEGFR2 and suPAR were insufficiently accurate to rule out clinical deterioration. Panels of biomarkers will likely be needed to capture the heterogeneous mechanistic pathways involved in sepsis-related organ failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39477836What 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.