A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A surveillance method to identify patients with sepsis from electronic health records in Hong Kong: a single centre retrospective study. | LitMetric

Background: Currently there are only two population studies on sepsis incidence in Asia. The burden of sepsis in Hong Kong is unknown. We developed a sepsis surveillance method to estimate sepsis incidence from a population electronic health record (EHR) in Hong Kong using objective clinical data. The study objective was to assess our method's performance in identifying sepsis using a retrospective cohort. We compared its accuracy to administrative sepsis surveillance methods such as Angus' and Martin's methods.

Method: In this single centre retrospective study we applied our sepsis surveillance method on adult patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. Two clinicians independently reviewed the clinical notes to determine which patients had sepsis. Performance was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve (AUC) of Angus', Martin's and our surveillance methods using clinical review as "gold standard."

Results: Between January 1 and February 28, 2018, our sepsis surveillance method identified 1352 adult patients hospitalised with suspected infection. We found that 38.9% (95%CI 36.3-41.5) of these patients had sepsis. Using a 490 patient validation cohort, two clinicians had good agreement with weighted kappa of 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.81) before coming to consensus on diagnosis of uncomplicated infection or sepsis for all patients. Our method had sensitivity 0.93 (95%CI 0.89-0.96), specificity 0.86 (95%CI 0.82-0.90) and an AUC 0.90 (95%CI 0.87-0.92) when validated against clinician review. In contrast, Angus' and Martin's methods had AUCs 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58) and 0.56 (95%CI 0.52-0.59), respectively.

Conclusions: A sepsis surveillance method based on objective data from a population EHR in Hong Kong was more accurate than administrative methods. It may be used to estimate sepsis population incidence and outcomes in Hong Kong.

Trial Registration: This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov on October 3, 2019 ( NCT04114214 ).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7487694PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05330-xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surveillance method
20
hong kong
20
sepsis surveillance
20
sepsis
14
patients sepsis
12
angus' martin's
12
electronic health
8
single centre
8
centre retrospective
8
retrospective study
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!