ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Evaluating Potential Missed Opportunities to Prevent, Treat, or Diagnose Sepsis: A Population-Based Retrospective Study of Insurance Claims.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of hemoadsorption in septic shock: toward a personalized approach.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Outcomes of 72-hour emergency department return visits requiring hospital admission in older adults: a nationally representative analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Frequency and Duration of Diagnostic Delays Associated with Coccidioidomycosis and Risk Factors for Missed Diagnoses, United States.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Clinical Preparedness of Dentists for Medical Emergencies: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.