ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Development and prospective validation of pediatric sepsis screening tool in a resource-limited setting.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to develop and prospectively validate a pragmatic two-stage bedside algorithm, integrating an age-adjusted modified Pediatric Early Warning Score (mPEWS) with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) trigger tool for early recognition of sepsis and septic shock.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled children admitted to a hospital from August 2020 to January 2022; all admissions aged 1 month-18 years were monitored. Stage-1 alerted when age-adjusted mPEWS is more than 3, plus abnormal temperature or leukocytosis/leukopenia with band form. Stage-2 applied the trigger tool by physicians; dual positivity in both stages defined a positive screening test. Diagnostic test performance was compared and calculated with Sepsis-2 (sepsis), Sepsis-3 (septic shock), Phoenix septic shock definitions, and 30-day mortality.
resultsAmong 3202 admissions (1765 patients; median age: 81 months; 54% male), 172 episodes (5.4%) met both stages of the new screening. Compared to the Sepsis-2 criteria, the tool achieved 60.4% sensitivity, 99.1% specificity, 84.3% positive predictive value (PPV), 96.9% negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80. For the Phoenix septic shock definition, sensitivity increased to 100% with 96.2% specificity, 30.2% PPV, 100% NPV, and AUC 0.98. Predicting 30-day mortality yielded 65.0% sensitivity, 95.1% specificity, 13.1% PPV, 99.6% NPV, and AUC 0.80. Screen-positive patients experienced markedly higher in-hospital (24.2% vs. 0.9%) and 30-day (13.1% vs. 0.4%) mortality than those screening negative (
conclusionThe combined mPEWS/APP trigger tool delivers rapid, simple with entirely clinical stratification, and excellent sensitivity for septic shock with high NPV for sepsis and early mortality. Its simplicity and minimal resource requirements make it a practical solution for improving timely sepsis recognition in resource-constrained pediatric settings.
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.