ArticleInfection2025
Transitional care after hospitalization for sepsis in Germany- results from the population-based AVENIR cohort study.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies to address implementation barriers in sepsis survivors' care transitions to home health and outpatient care: a multi-site, type 1 hybrid implementation study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Factors associated with mortality in older sepsis patients: a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Germany.Age and ageing · 2026Observational
- Context and determinants for implementing a sepsis survivor care transition intervention reported from five health systems and home health agencies.Frontiers in medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSepsis survivorship is associated with significant long-term morbidity, mortality and health care utilization. Transitional care between inpatient and follow-up care is crucial, but insufficiently understood. We investigated health care utilization in sepsis survivors 90 days post-discharge, comparing translational care during 2016-2019 vs. 2020 in the first year of the pandemic.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used nationwide health claims data of the "AOK- die Gesundheitskasse". Sepsis patients with inpatient treatment in 2016-2019 were identified using explicit ICD-10 codes for sepsis and codes for organ dysfunction. A second sepsis patient cohort was identified in 2020, which included also explicitly defined sepsis patients as well as patients with COVID-19 and Influenza with evidence of organ dysfunction. Among survivors, health care utilization in the 90 days post-discharge was assessed and first health service provider contacts were visualized using Sankey diagrams.
resultsAmong 234,874 sepsis survivors in 2016-2019, 94.4% were treated by a general practitioner, 47.7% had ≥ 1 hospital readmission and 42.8% of patients had ≥ 1 emergency treatment 90 days post-sepsis. Nearly all patients had prompt health service provider contacts in that time frame, with physicians in the outpatient sector being the most common first and second health service provider contacts. In the 2020 cohort (n = 69,432 survivors), more patients died without follow-up contact. Additionally, the latency to the first and second health service provider contacts were elevated compared to 2016-2019. DISCUSSION: Sepsis survivors receive early, high-frequency follow-up care in the inpatient and outpatient sector. This may be an opportunity to implement early screening for sequelae and targeted therapies.
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.