Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41693215›Full record

SynthesisJournal of hospital medicine2026

Impact of manual sepsis screening in hospitalized adult patients: A systematic review.

Rachel K Hechtman, Natasha Garamani, Yezen R Anabtawi, Amanda G Rivas, Bailey Antonowicz, Anna K Barker, Tami Garcia, Rosalie Mulcahy, Patricia J Posa, Michael W Sjoding and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of hospital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rachel K HechtmanDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9479-1653
Natasha GaramaniDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Yezen R AnabtawiMichigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Amanda G RivasDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Bailey AntonowiczDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Anna K BarkerDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0719-6838
Tami GarciaDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Rosalie MulcahyDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Patricia J PosaDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Michael W SjodingDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Hallie C PrescottDepartment of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

PULMONARY CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY TRAININGT32HL007749 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Robert Pickett Dickson · 1993 to 2026
$19.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManual sepsis screening, which includes bedside clinical assessment, is widely used in emergency departments and hospital wards and may improve early recognition and treatment.

objectivesTo synthesize evidence on the impact of manual sepsis screening on sepsis-related processes of care and mortality.

methodsWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL for original research published between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2024. Search terms addressed sepsis, screening, and hospital settings (emergency department, ward, intensive care unit). We included full-text studies evaluating the impact of manual screening on sepsis-related processes of care or mortality. Two reviewers screened studies, and risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

resultsOf 10,469 studies identified, 17 met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in nine countries; most were single-center (n = 15), used pre-post designs (n = 15), and were conducted before 2016 (n = 11). Seven of 10 studies reported improvement in at least one process-of-care outcome after implementation. Six of 13 studies reported statistically significant mortality reductions; three additional studies reported ≥5% absolute mortality improvement without statistical testing or significance. Overall conclusions were limited by high risk of bias, primarily due to confounding.

conclusionsEvidence supporting manual sepsis screening is low quality and may be outdated given evolving sepsis recognition and care. Rigorous contemporary studies are needed to guide adoption and implementation decisions.

Indexed as

HospitalizationMass ScreeningSepsisAdultHumans

Identifiers

PMID41693215
PMCPMC13136923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.