ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
A systematic methodological evaluation of sepsis guidelines: Protocol for quality assessment and consistency of recommendations.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adults: A Contextualized Clinical Practice Guideline From the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Endorsed by the Kuwait Anesthesia and Critical Care Society.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Guideline
- Bridging practice and evidence: insights from the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and Saudi Critical Care Society Guidelines on trauma-related VTE.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on mortality in ICU sepsis patients: a retrospective MIMIC-IV cohort study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- A systematic methodological evaluation of sepsis guidelines: Protocol for quality assessment and consistency of recommendations.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection. Despite the development of multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to standardize sepsis management, substantial variability exists in methodological quality and key clinical recommendations. This inconsistency complicates guideline implementation and potentially affects patient outcomes. The proposed systematic methodological review aims to evaluate the quality and consistency of sepsis guidelines to identify areas for improvement and provide actionable insights for guideline developers.
methodsThis protocol outlines a systematic methodological review of sepsis CPGs published over the last two decades (2004-2025). A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the official websites of professional societies to identify relevant guidelines. The inclusion criteria are CPGs targeting adult sepsis management published by recognized medical or governmental organizations with detailed methodological descriptions. We will use the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument to assess methodological quality across six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence. Data extraction will focus on key clinical recommendations, including fluid resuscitation, antimicrobial therapy, vasopressor and inotrope use, corticosteroids, source control, blood glucose management, hemodynamic management, and mechanical ventilation management. The consistency of the recommendations will be analyzed, and trends in guideline quality over time will be evaluated. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools will be evaluated for data extraction processes in systematic reviews to determine their capacity for efficiency and accuracy in extracting data compared to human-driven methods.
conclusionBy systematically appraising the quality and consistency of sepsis guidelines, this review aims to address the existing gaps and discrepancies in guideline development and application. These findings will provide valuable insights into the evolution of sepsis guideline quality, highlight areas for improvement, and support the development of more robust evidence-based recommendations. These results will inform clinicians and guideline developers, ultimately enhancing the standardization and effectiveness of sepsis management worldwide. Integrating AI into the review process represents a novel methodological advancement that streamlines data extraction and analysis.
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.