ArticleInfection2026
Think sepsis, write sepsis, code sepsis - patient characteristics associated with sepsis (under-)coding in administrative health data.
Article in Infection, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, yet its documentation and coding in administrative health data remain unreliable. Accurate coding is essential for epidemiological surveillance, quality assurance, and reimbursement. This study aims to identify patient characteristics associated with under-diagnosis and under-coding of sepsis in German inpatient administrative health data (IAHD).
methodsThis secondary analysis of the multicenter OPTIMISE study included 10,334 hospital cases from ten German hospitals (2015-2017). Sepsis cases were identified via structured chart review and compared to ICD-coded diagnoses. Logistic regression and classification tree analyses were used to determine predictors of under-diagnosis and under-coding, including ICU admission, organ dysfunction, and infection source.
resultsAmong 1,310 cases fulfilling severe sepsis-1 criteria, only 30.7% were correctly coded. The strongest predictor for coding accuracy was explicit mention of sepsis in the medical chart (OR 19.58). ICU treatment, organ dysfunction severity, and mechanical ventilation were also associated with higher coding rates, while pneumonia as the infection source was linked to a lower probability of sepsis being named and coded.
conclusionSepsis coding in administrative data is frequently inaccurate. Explicit naming of sepsis and severity markers strongly influence correct coding. As Germany introduces mandatory sepsis quality assurance in 2026, targeted interventions - including enhanced clinician documentation and electronic coding support - are essential to improve coding reliability and patient care.
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.