Cited by 120Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysAcute Kidney Injury Research

Identifying Patients With Sepsis on the Hospital Wards

Open access
Bhattacharjee, Poushali, Edelson, Dana P., Churpek, Matthew M.·2017·Chest

Abstract

Sepsis contributes to up to half of all deaths in hospitalized patients, and early interventions, such as appropriate antibiotics, have been shown to improve outcomes. Most research has focused on early identification and treatment of patients with sepsis in the ED and the ICU; however, many patients acquire sepsis on the general wards. The goal of this review is to discuss recent advances in the detection of sepsis in patients on the hospital wards. We discuss data highlighting the benefits and limitations of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for screening patients with sepsis, such as its low specificity, as well as newly described scoring systems, including the proposed role of the quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score. Challenges specific to detecting sepsis on the wards are discussed, and future directions that use big data approaches and automated alert systems are highlighted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2016.06.020

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sepsis screening tools vary widely in diagnostic accuracy, with most having poor predictive values, although use of some is associated with improvements in care processes.

    “There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes [28–31].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhattacharjee, P., Edelson, D. P., & Churpek, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Churpek, Matthew M.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
151
Issue
4
Pages
898-907
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2465673526
Cited by
120
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS000078)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08HL121080)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis, sepsis detection, hospital wards, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, SIRS criteria, qSOFA score, sepsis screening, scoring system, automated alert system, big data
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Differential, Hospitalization, Humans, Hospital Mortality, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Sepsis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Organ Dysfunction Scores

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review