The Effect of Early Warning Systems for Sepsis on Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Samer Ein Alshaeba, Elizabeth A Marhoffer, Jürgen L Holleck, Jesse Theisen-Toupal, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Craig G Gunderson
{"title":"The Effect of Early Warning Systems for Sepsis on Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Samer Ein Alshaeba, Elizabeth A Marhoffer, Jürgen L Holleck, Jesse Theisen-Toupal, Alyssa A Grimshaw, Craig G Gunderson","doi":"10.1007/s11606-025-09569-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommends that all hospitals screen for sepsis as part of performance improvement. The effect of screening for sepsis on mortality, time to antibiotics, and length of stay is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from earliest entry to June 1, 2024. We included all randomized controlled studies of any type of alert system to screen adult patients for sepsis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Outcomes were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Strength of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, we found 7 studies of 3409 patients with sepsis. The pooled odds ratio for mortality for patients randomized to early warning systems was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60, 1.18). The average time to antibiotics was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.08 h faster in the screening group (95% CI, - 0.44, 0.28). Length of stay was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.27 days less in the screening group (95%, - 1.21, 0.66). All differences were non-significant. Overall strength of evidence was low due to risk of bias and imprecision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the current body of randomized controlled studies, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for sepsis. Guidelines should reconsider current recommendations for screening for sepsis.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration: </strong>CRD42024563222.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09569-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign strongly recommends that all hospitals screen for sepsis as part of performance improvement. The effect of screening for sepsis on mortality, time to antibiotics, and length of stay is uncertain.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from earliest entry to June 1, 2024. We included all randomized controlled studies of any type of alert system to screen adult patients for sepsis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Outcomes were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Strength of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Results: In total, we found 7 studies of 3409 patients with sepsis. The pooled odds ratio for mortality for patients randomized to early warning systems was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60, 1.18). The average time to antibiotics was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.08 h faster in the screening group (95% CI, - 0.44, 0.28). Length of stay was reported in 4 studies and found to be 0.27 days less in the screening group (95%, - 1.21, 0.66). All differences were non-significant. Overall strength of evidence was low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusions: Based on the current body of randomized controlled studies, there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening for sepsis. Guidelines should reconsider current recommendations for screening for sepsis.

Prospero registration: CRD42024563222.

脓毒症早期预警系统对死亡率的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:生存败血症运动强烈建议所有医院筛查败血症作为绩效改进的一部分。脓毒症筛查对死亡率、抗生素治疗时间和住院时间的影响尚不确定。方法:系统检索Cochrane Library、谷歌Scholar、Ovid Embase、Ovid Medline、Scopus、Web of Science Core Collection从最早入库到2024年6月1日的文献。我们纳入了所有用于筛查脓毒症成年患者的任何类型警报系统的随机对照研究。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总结果。使用建议评估、发展和评估分级(GRADE)系统对证据的强度进行评级。结果:我们共发现7项研究3409例败血症患者。随机分配到早期预警系统的患者死亡率的合并优势比为0.84 (95% CI, 0.60, 1.18)。4项研究报告了使用抗生素的平均时间,发现筛查组比对照组快0.08小时(95% CI, - 0.44, 0.28)。4项研究报告了住院时间,发现筛查组的住院时间减少了0.27天(95%,- 1.21,0.66)。所有差异均不显著。由于存在偏倚和不精确的风险,证据的总体强度较低。结论:根据目前的随机对照研究,没有足够的证据推荐筛查败血症。指南应重新考虑目前对败血症筛查的建议。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD42024563222。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信