Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2025
Accuracy of the modified Global Burden of Disease International Classification of Diseases coding methods for identifying sepsis: a prospective multicentre cohort study.
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 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.
- Construction and validation of a sepsis prediction model using inflammatory and hemodynamic markers in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Disease Burden Attributable to Hip Fractures in Asian Women.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of sepsis in emergency departments: insights from the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS) database in Korea, 2018-2022.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Profile and Data Quality of DataVerse Japan: A Multi-Institutional Clinical Data Platform for Emergency and Critical Care Research.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the accuracy of three International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes methods derived from Global Burden of Disease (GBD) sepsis study (modified GBD method) in identifying sepsis, compared to the Angus method. Sources of errors in these methods were also reported.
methodsProspective multicentre, observational, study. Emergency Department patients aged ≥ 16 years with high sepsis risk from nine hospitals in NSW, Australia were screened for clinical sepsis using Sepsis 3 criteria and coded as having sepsis or not using the modified GBD and Angus methods. The three modified GBD methods were: Explicit-sepsis-specific ICD code recorded; Implicit-sepsis-specific code or infection as primary ICD code plus organ dysfunction code; Implicit plus-as for Implicit but infection as primary or secondary ICD code. Agreement between clinical sepsis and ICD coding methods was assessed using Cronbach alpha (α). For false positive cases (ICD-coded sepsis but not clinically diagnosed), the ICD codes leading to those errors were documented. For false negatives (clinically diagnosed sepsis but ICD-coded), uncoded sources of infection and organ dysfunction were documented.
resultsOf 6869 screened patients, 450 (median age 72.4 years, 48.9% females) met inclusion criteria. Clinical sepsis was diagnosed in 215/450 (47.8%). The explicit, implicit, implicit plus and Angus methods identified sepsis in 108/450 (24.0%), 175/450 (38.9%), 222/450 (49.3%) and 170/450 (37.8%), respectively. Sensitivity was 41.4%, 58.1%, 67.4% and 55.8%, and specificity 91.9%, 78.7%, 67.2% and 79.1%, respectively. Agreement between clinical sepsis and all ICD coding methods was low (α = 0.52-0.56). False positives were 19, 50, and 77, while false negatives were 126, 90, and 70 for the explicit, implicit, and implicit plus methods, respectively. For false positive cases, unspecified urinary tract infection, hypotension and acute kidney failure were commonly assigned infection and organ dysfunction codes. About half (44.3%-55.6%) of the false negative cases didn't have a pathogen documented.
conclusionThe modified GBD method demonstrated low accuracy in identifying sepsis; with the implicit plus method being the most accurate. Errors in identifying sepsis using ICD codes arise mostly from coding for unspecified urinary infections and associated organ dysfunction.
trial registrationThe study was registered at the ANZCTR (ACTRN12621000333819) on 24 March 2021.
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.