MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944713555 · doi:10.1097/pec.0000000000001838

How Are Clinicians Treating Children With Sepsis in Emergency Departments in Latin America?

2019· article· en· W2944713555 on OpenAlexaff
Guillermo Kohn-Loncarica, Ana Fustiñana, Roberto Jabornisky, Sonia Viviana Pavlicich, Javier Prego-Pettit, Adriana Yock‐Corrales, Consuelo Luna-Muñoz, Nils Cassón, Eugenia A. Álvarez-Gálvez, Ibelice R. Zambrano, Cristina Contreras-Núñez, César Santos, Guadalupe Paniagua-Lantelli, Camilo Gutiérrez, Sérgio L. Amantéa, Sebastián González‐Dambrauskas, María José Sánchez, Pedro Rino, Santiago Mintegi, Niranjan Kissoon

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalSunny Hill Health Centre for Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNorepinephrineSeptic shockEpinephrineDobutamineSepsisShock (circulatory)InotropeAnesthesiaEmergency departmentIntensive careVasoactiveEmergency medicineSurviving Sepsis CampaignDopamineIntensive care medicineHemodynamicsInternal medicineSevere sepsisNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines adherence in emergency departments (EDs) relies partly on the availability of resources to improve sepsis care and outcomes. Our objective was to assess the management of pediatric septic shock (PSS) in Latin America's EDs and to determine the impact of treatment coordinated by a pediatric emergency specialist (PEMS) versus nonpediatric emergency specialists (NPEMS) on guidelines adherence. METHODS: Prospective, descriptive, and multicenter study using an electronic survey administered to PEMS and NPEMS who treat PSS in EDs in 14 Latin American countries. RESULTS: We distributed 2164 surveys with a response rate of 41.5%, of which 22.5% were PEMS. Overall American College of Critical Care Medicine reported guidelines adherence was as follows: vascular access obtained in 5 minutes, 76%; fluid infusion technique, 60%; administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 32%; inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 61%; dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 80%; norepinephrine in warm shock, 57%; and antibiotics within 60 minutes, 82%. Between PEMS and NPEMS, the following differences were found: vascular access in 5 minutes, 87.1% versus 72.7% (P < 0.01); fluid infusion technique, 72.3% versus 55.9% (P < 0.01); administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 42% versus 29% (P < 0.01); inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 75.7% versus 56.3% (P < 0.01); dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 87.1% versus 77.3% (P < 0.05); norepinephrine in warm shock, 67.8% versus 54% (P < 0.01); and antibiotic administration within first 60 minutes, 90.1% versus 79.3% (P < 0.01), respectively. Good adherence criteria were followed by 24%. The main referred barrier for sepsis care was a failure in its recognition, including the lack of triage tools. CONCLUSIONS: In some Latin American countries, there is variability in self-reported adherence to the evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PSS during the first hour. The coordination by PEMS support greater adherence to these recommendations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Emergency CareSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207