Cited by 71Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysAcute Kidney Injury Research

Application of a framework to assess the usefulness of alternative sepsis criteria

Open access
Seymour, Christopher W., Coopersmith, Craig M., Deutschman, Clifford S., Gesten, Foster, Klompas, Michael, Levy, Mitchell, Martin, Gregory S., Osborn, Tiffany M. +4 more·2016·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

The current definition of sepsis is life-threatening, acute organ dysfunction secondary to a dysregulated host response to infection. Criteria to operationalize this definition can be judged by six domains of usefulness (reliability, content, construct and criterion validity, measurement burden, and timeliness). The relative importance of these six domains depends on the intended purpose for the criteria (clinical care, basic and clinical research, surveillance, or quality improvement [QI] and audit). For example, criteria for clinical care should have high content and construct validity, timeliness, and low measurement burden to facilitate prompt care. Criteria for surveillance or QI/audit place greater emphasis on reliability across individuals and sites and lower emphasis on timeliness. Criteria for clinical trials require timeliness to ensure prompt enrollment and reasonable reliability but can tolerate high measurement burden. Basic research also tolerates high measurement burden and may not need stability over time. In an illustrative case study, we compared examples of criteria designed for clinical care, surveillance and QI/audit among 396,241 patients admitted to 12 academic and community hospitals in an integrated health system. Case rates differed four-fold and mortality three-fold. Predictably, clinical care criteria, which emphasized timeliness and low burden and therefore used vital signs and routine laboratory tests, had the greater case identification with lowest mortality. QI/audit criteria, which emphasized reliability and criterion validity, used discharge information and had the lowest case identification with highest mortality. Using this framework to identify the purpose and apply domains of usefulness can help with the evaluation of existing sepsis diagnostic criteria and provide a roadmap for future work.

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 · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000001724

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Traditional scoring systems rely on a limited number of variables and predefined thresholds, which may not capture the complexity of sepsis and may be influenced by confounding factors.

    “Traditional scoring systems rely on a limited number of variables and predefined thresholds (e.g., qSOFA only requires three readily available clinical parameters), which may not capture the complexity of sepsis and may be influenced by confounding factors.29,30”

    From Development and validation of a screening tool for sepsis without laboratory results in the emergency department: a machine learning study (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Clinical care > Example of clinical criteria section describes qSOFA as a low-burden prompt and says important elements of sepsis were not given criteria, supporting the concern that simplified criteria may not capture its complexity. It gives a SOFA threshold, but the passages do not specify qSOFA’s three parameters or say that these systems are influenced by confounding factors (searched: qSOFA parameters, thresholds, confounding). No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Singer M 2016 Sepsis Task Force definitions JAMA 1 29 27458966

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seymour, C. W., Coopersmith, C. M., Deutschman, C. S., Gesten, F., Klompas, M., Levy, M., Martin, G. S., Osborn, T. M., Rhee, C., Warren, D. K., Watson, R. S., & Angus, D. C.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2016-03
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
e122-e130
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2276212977
Cited by
71
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10
FWCI
14.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL123020, U01HL123020)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM107650, K23GM104022, P50GM076659, R34GM107650, GM104022)
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 diagnostic criteria, reliability statistics, construct validity, criterion validity, measurement burden, timeliness, quality improvement, hospital surveillance, case finding, mortality, vital signs, discharge information
MeSH terms
Hospitalization, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Sepsis, 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