ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Sepsis and septic shock case identification from electronic health records: an open-source workflow and comparison of cohorts by criteria.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeploying clinical criteria to identify patients with sepsis from the electronic health record is challenging. We sought to build an open-source data workflow for sepsis and septic shock case identification using three distinct criteria and assess the identified cohorts.
methodsWe developed a workflow from raw data queries through case identification using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event (CDC ASE), Sepsis-3, and International Classification of Diseases criteria. The workflow was then applied to patient encounters between 2012 and 2024 across 25 emergency departments and hospitals in an integrated health system. Separate cohorts of sepsis and septic shock patients by criteria were derived, restricted to a patient's first sepsis encounter, and compared. Pairwise agreement was evaluated with Cohen's kappa (κ) and Jaccard index.
resultsOur programming code for the complete workflow is available on a public platform. We identified 302,112 patients with sepsis and 59,043 with septic shock who met one or more of the three criteria. Multiple criteria were satisfied for only 35% of patients meeting at least one sepsis criterion and 45% of patients meeting at least one septic shock criterion. Pairwise agreement was the highest between CDC ASE and Sepsis-3 criteria for both sepsis (κ = 0.39, Jaccard index = 0.31) and septic shock (κ = 0.53, Jaccard index = 0.37). Characteristics and outcomes of patients differed across cohorts identified with the three criteria. Patients meeting both CDC ASE and Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis and septic shock were more severely ill and had high in-hospital mortality incidence.
conclusionsOur open-source workflow is useful for individuals seeking to build and analyze sepsis and septic shock cohorts. Agreement between case criteria was fair to moderate. Clinicians, researchers, and quality improvement practitioners who identify patient cohorts with sepsis and septic shock retrospectively should consider applying multiple criteria.
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.