Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40172282›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2025

Evaluating Potential Missed Opportunities to Prevent, Treat, or Diagnose Sepsis: A Population-Based Retrospective Study of Insurance Claims.

Roger D Struble, Alan T Arakkal, Joseph E Cavanaugh, Philip M Polgreen, Aaron C Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Roger D StrubleDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Alan T ArakkalDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Joseph E CavanaughDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Philip M PolgreenDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Aaron C MillerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.ORCID 0000-0002-6828-8966

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS027375NCEZID CDC HHS U54 CK000613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceDelays in diagnosing sepsis may increase morbidity and mortality, but the frequency of delays is poorly understood.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to estimate the frequency and duration of diagnostic delays for sepsis and potential risk factors for delay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe conducted a retrospective case-crossover analysis of sepsis cases from 2016 to 2019 using claims from Merative MarketScan. We ascertained the index diagnosis of sepsis and corresponding hospitalization. We analyzed healthcare visits in the 180 days before diagnosis and then compared the observed and expected trends in signs or symptoms of infection, immune or organ dysfunction (e.g., fever, dyspnea) during the 14 days before diagnosis. A bootstrapping approach was used to estimate the frequency and duration of potential diagnostic delays along with possible risk-factors for experiencing a delay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number of patients who experienced a potential diagnostic delay, duration of delay, and number of potential missed opportunities.

resultsWe identified a total of 649,756 cases of sepsis from 2016 to 2019 meeting inclusion criteria. There was an increase in visits with signs or symptoms of infection, immune or organ dysfunction just before the index diagnosis of sepsis. We estimated that around 16.57% (95% CI, 16.38-16.78) of patients experienced a potential diagnostic delay, with a mean delay duration of 3.21 days (95% CI, 3.13-3.27) and a median of 2 days. Most delays occurred in outpatient settings. Potential diagnostic delays were more frequent among younger age groups and patients who received antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] 2.58 [95% CI, 2.54-2.62]), or treatments for particular symptoms, including opioids (OR 1.43 [95% CI, 1.40-1.46]) and inhalers (OR 1.37 [95% CI, 1.33-1.40]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There may be a substantial number of potential missed opportunities to diagnose sepsis, especially in outpatient settings. Multiple factors might contribute to delays in diagnosing sepsis including commonly prescribed medications for symptoms.

Indexed as

Delayed DiagnosisSepsisAdultAgedFemaleHospitalizationHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40172282
PMCPMC11968023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.