Cited by 54Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInfection Control in HealthcareNeonatal and Maternal Infections

Screening for sepsis in general hospitalized patients: a systematic review

Alberto, L., Marshall, A.P., Walker, R., Aitken, L.M.·2017·Journal of Hospital Infection

Abstract

Background Sepsis is a condition widely observed outside critical care areas.Aim To examine the application of sepsis screening tools for early recognition of sepsis in general hospitalized patients to: (i) identify the accuracy of these tools; (ii) determine the outcomes associated with their implementation; and (iii) describe the implementation process.Methods A systematic review method was used. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched for primary articles, published from January 1990 to June 2016, that investigated screening tools or alert mechanisms for early identification of sepsis in adult general hospitalized patients. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016042261).Findings More than 8000 citations were screened for eligibility after duplicates had been removed. Six articles met the inclusion criteria testing two types of sepsis screening tools. Electronic tools can capture, recognize abnormal variables, and activate an alert in real time. However, accuracy of these tools was inconsistent across studies with only one demonstrating high specificity and sensitivity. Paper-based, nurse-led screening tools appear to be more sensitive in the identification of septic patients but were only studied in small samples and particular populations. The process of care measures appears to be enhanced; however, demonstrating improved outcomes is more challenging. Implementation details are rarely reported. Heterogeneity of studies prevented meta-analysis.Conclusion Clinicians, researchers and health decision-makers should consider these findings and limitations when implementing screening tools, research or policy on sepsis recognition in general hospitalized patients.

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.jhin.2017.05.005

Cites

41 of 41 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
Alberto, L., Marshall, A. P., Walker, R., & Aitken, L. M.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Alberto, L.
Venue
Journal of Hospital Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
305-315
ISSN
0195-6701 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2612834622
Cited by
54
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
Keywords
sepsis, sepsis screening, early recognition, hospitalized patients, electronic alert system, nurse-led screening, screening accuracy, implementation, process of care
MeSH terms
Hospitals, Humans, Inpatients, Mass Screening, Sepsis, Early Diagnosis

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