ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Sepsis in the emergency department: a dual challenge of early management and antimicrobial stewardship.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics, Empirical Antibiotic Appropriateness, and Outcomes of Gram-Positive Versus Gram-Negative Bacteremia in Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Review
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
backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Although mortality rates have declined, sepsis remains a major global health concern. Early recognition and prompt, appropriate treatment are essential for improving patient outcomes. However, implementing effective sepsis management protocols in Emergency Departments (EDs) is often hindered by staff shortages and high patient volumes. Strengthening sepsis care is also crucial for promoting responsible antibiotic use. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program—based on stakeholder training, audit, and feedback—implemented in the ED on the management of sepsis.
methodsA retrospective pre-post intervention analysis was conducted to assess changes in adherence to sepsis management guidelines and clinical outcomes following the introduction of the AMS program. The effect of the intervention on key process indicators was evaluated using Interrupted Time Series (ITS) analysis and logistic regression models adjusted for age and sex.
resultsWe analysed data from 577 septic patients in the pre-intervention period and 502 in the post-intervention period. Following implementation, sepsis recognition increased from 47.5% to 61% (p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were also observed in the collection of blood cultures (from 20.5% to 42.4%, p < 0.0001), antibiotic administration (25.7% to 46.8%, p < 0.0001), and crystalloid fluid administration (53% to 72%, p < 0.0001). Complete execution of the sepsis treatment bundle increased substantially post-intervention (OR 2.99, p < 0.0001). Adherence to institutional antibiotic guidelines also improved (OR 4.54, p < 0.0001). ITS analysis confirmed improvements in all components of the sepsis bundle and in sepsis recognition after the intervention. Adherence to local antibiotic guidelines alone (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33–1.04) and in combination with sepsis recognition (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28–1.01) was associated with a reduction in 14-day mortality.
conclusionThe AMS program led to substantial improvements in nearly all key process indicators for sepsis management, supporting the objectives of the WHO Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance, particularly in countries with high prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacteria (WHO. Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland; 2015). Process indicators were confirmed to be associated with improved short-term survival. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.