SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2025
The Effect of Early Warning Systems for Sepsis on Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of manual sepsis screening in hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommends that all hospitals screen for sepsis as part of performance improvement. The effect of screening for sepsis on mortality, time to antibiotics, and length of stay is uncertain.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from earliest entry to June 1, 2024. We included all randomized controlled studies of any type of alert system to screen adult patients for sepsis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Outcomes were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Strength of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
resultsIn total, we found 7 studies of 3409 patients with sepsis. The pooled odds ratio for mortality for patients randomized to early warning systems was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60, 1.18). The average time to antibiotics was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.08 h faster in the screening group (95% CI, - 0.44, 0.28). Length of stay was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.27 days less in the screening group (95%, - 1.21, 0.66). All differences were non-significant. Overall strength of evidence was low due to risk of bias and imprecision.
conclusionsBased on the current body of randomized controlled studies, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for sepsis. Guidelines should reconsider current recommendations for screening for sepsis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024563222.
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.