Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40105841›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Complex Sepsis Presentations, SEP-1 Compliance, and Outcomes.

Chanu Rhee, Sarah E Train, Michael R Filbin, Steven T Park, Nicholas M Mohr, Anne Zepeski, Brett A Faine, David J Roach, Emily Porter, Claire N Shappell and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Time to Antibiotics and Mortality in Immunocompromised Versus Non-immunocompromised Patients With Suspected Sepsis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hour-1 Sepsis Bundle: Updated Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Hospital Cost Components and Predictors inTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

14 authors.

Chanu RheeDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sarah E TrainDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael R FilbinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Steven T ParkDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange.
Nicholas M MohrDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City.
Anne ZepeskiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City.
Brett A FaineDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City.
David J RoachDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Emily PorterDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Claire N ShappellDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kamryn PlechotDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of California Medical Center, Orange.
Laura DelloStrittoDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tingting YuDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael KlompasDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

AHRQ HHS K08 HS029518NCEZID CDC HHS U54 CK000611
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) is supported by observational studies that report SEP-1 compliance is associated with lower mortality. Most studies, however, adjusted for limited confounders and provided little insight into why bundle-compliant care was not provided. Objectives: To identify the clinical factors that complicate the diagnosis and management of sepsis and assess their association with SEP-1 compliance and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among 590 adults with sepsis in the emergency department of 4 academic hospitals from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Patients' medical records were reviewed between September 2022 and December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were (1) characteristics of patients who received SEP-1-compliant care vs characteristics of patients who received noncompliant care and (2) association between SEP-1 compliance and hospital mortality using multivariable models to adjust for successively more potential confounders (first demographics and comorbidities, then infection source, then severity of illness, and then clinical markers of complexity). Results: Of 590 patients with sepsis (median age, 65 years [IQR, 53-77 years]; 329 men [55.8%]), 335 (56.8%) received SEP-1-compliant care, and 225 (43.2%) received noncompliant care. Compared with patients in the compliant group, patients in the noncompliant group were more likely to be 65 years or older (142 [55.7%] vs 158 [47.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.01-1.95]), to have multiple comorbidities (Elixhauser score >20: 99 [38.8%] vs 99 [29.6%]; OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.07-2.13]), and to have a higher incidence of septic shock (107 [42.0%] vs 107 [31.9%]; OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.10-2.16]), kidney dysfunction (87 [34.1%] vs 80 [23.9%]; OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.15-2.37]), and thrombocytopenia (43 [16.9%] vs 37 [11.0%]; OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.02-2.62]) on presentation. Compared with patients in the compliant group, those in the noncompliant group also had more nonfebrile presentations (136 [53.3%] vs 121 [36.1%]; OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.45-2.82]), impaired mental status (92 [36.1%] vs 94 [28.1%]; OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.02-2.05]), need for bedside procedures (57 [22.4%] vs 41 [12.2%]; OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.33-3.21]), acute concurrent noninfectious illnesses (140 [54.9%] vs 151 [45.1%]; OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.07-2.06]), and noninfectious illness as the primary factor associated with their presentation (84 [32.9%] vs 71 [21.2%]; OR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.08-3.08]). SEP-1 compliance was associated with lower crude mortality rates compared with noncompliance (40 [11.9%] vs 41 [16.1%]; unadjusted OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.98]), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups after successively adjusting for demographics and comorbidities (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.42-1.18]), infection source (AOR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.20]), severity of illness (AOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.50-1.49]), and clinical markers of complexity (AOR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.61-1.91]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adults with sepsis, complex clinical presentations were more common among patients whose treatment was noncompliant with SEP-1. These nuances are poorly captured in most observational studies but confound the association between SEP-1 compliance and mortality.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePatient Care BundlesSepsisAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40105841
PMCPMC11923707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.