ArticleDie Anaesthesiologie2025
[Quality of early sepsis diagnostics in German intensive care units-Results of a nationwide survey].
Article in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of sepsis patients remains an ongoing challenge in intensive care medicine and leads to unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates, even in medically highly developed countries.
objectiveWhat is the state of the quality of early sepsis treatment on German intensive care units (ICUs)? MATERIAL AND
methodsTo assess the quality of early sepsis treatment, we conducted a nationwide internet-based survey among members of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI).
resultsA total of 1935 intensive care physicians across Germany were surveyed of whom 459 experienced specialist physicans responded, including 38% chief physicians and 61% senior physicians. Overall, 66% of participants reported the use of screening tools for early sepsis detection, with the quick-sepsis organ failure assessment (qSOFA) being the most frequently used (71%). In 32.7% of the surveyed ICUs a microbiologist was available around the clock. Interdisciplinary rounds involving a microbiologist or a clinical pharmacologist took place in 55.5% and 52.5% of ICUs, respectively. Molecular diagnostic procedures (e.g., SeptiFast®) for rapid pathogen identification were available in only 10.9% of the surveyed ICUs. DISCUSSION: In summary, the use of the qSOFA score remains widespread despite deviating recommendations in current international guidelines. Additionally, interdisciplinary rounds involving microbiology or pharmacology were conducted in only half of the participating ICUs. Molecular biological diagnostic procedures are still not part of the diagnostic standard in most hospitals.
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.