ArticleCritical care medicine2025
Performance Evaluation of Prehospital Sepsis Prediction Models.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Identification of Sepsis by Emergency Medical Services: Diagnostic Accuracy of Scoring Systems in a Retrospective Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a sepsis prediction model using inflammatory and hemodynamic markers in the emergency department.Frontiers in 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate prediction models designed or used to identify patients with sepsis in the prehospital setting.
designNested case-control study.
settingFour emergency departments (EDs) in Utah. PATIENTS: Adult nontrauma patient with available prehospital care records who received ED treatment during 2018 after arrival via ambulance.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf 16,620 patients arriving to a study ED via ambulance, 1,037 (6.2%) met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED. Complete prehospital care data was available for 434 case patients with sepsis and 434 control patients without sepsis. Model discrimination for the outcome of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was quantified using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), which yields a value equal to outcome prevalence for a noninformative model. Of 21 evaluated prediction models, only the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) model (AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27-0.41) outperformed unaided infection assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel (AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.23]) for prehospital prediction of patients who would meet Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED ( p < 0.001). PRESEP also outperformed the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11-0.16]; p < 0.001). Among 28 evaluated dichotomous predictors of ED sepsis, sensitivity ranged from 6% to 91% and positive predictive value 8-100%. PRESEP exhibited modest sensitivity (60%) and positive predictive value (20%).
conclusionsPRESEP was the only evaluated prediction model that demonstrated better discrimination than unaided EMS infection assessment for the identification of ambulance-transported adult patients who met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED.
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.