Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2026
Impact of United Kingdom guidelines for stratification of risk in adult hospital inpatients identified with sepsis - an observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnited Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for evaluation of sepsis risk remain to be validated. This study aims to model the impact of the updated guidelines in patients identified as having a risk of sepsis based on the original guidelines.
methodsA single centre cohort study, between 2019 and 2022. Adult inpatients at risk of sepsis defined by red / amber flags in the original guideline were included. NICE criteria, based upon aggregate National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) and additional risk-factors (NEWS2 single parameter score three, lactate ≥2mmol/l, skin changes, acute kidney injury or deteriorating trajectory) were applied to this cohort to derive a revised risk classification. The primary outcome was the net reclassification index (NRI). Secondary outcomes were the association with a composite of critical care admission or death in hospital and the association with ICD-10 sepsis / Sepsis-3 status.
results1303 hospital inpatients were included. Between red flag sepsis and NICE High-risk classification, there was agreement in 57.6%. The NICE model decreased the risk-classification in 471 (42.4%), of whom 216 experienced the composite outcome. The event RI deteriorated (-0.321), whilst the non-event RI improved (0.355). NICE High-risk had a similar C-statistic (0.57(0.55,0.60) vs. 0.56(0.54,0.58)) but with lower sensitivity (59.1% vs. 91.2%), higher specificity (55.1% vs. 20.2%) and PPV (55.9% vs. 52.1%) as compared to red flags. NICE High-risk had a greater C-statistic for association with Sepsis-3 status (0.66 (0.63, 0.69) vs. 0.55 (0.54, 0.57)).
conclusionsAs implemented in this study, NICE criteria decreased the number of patients in a high-risk sepsis category, compared to a model using red flag criteria. These criteria decreased sensitivity and increased specificity for the outcome of critical care admission or death, whilst strengthening the association with Sepsis-3 criteria. Limited predictive performance advocates for clinically-led sepsis assessment.
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.