MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121476743 · doi:10.33151/ajp.18.851

State of the Evidence for Emergency Medical Services Care of Adult Patients with Sepsis: An Analysis of Research from the Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice Program

2021· article· en· W3121476743 on OpenAlexaff
J Greene, Judah Goldstein, Daniel Lane, Jan Jensen, Yves Leroux, Janel Swain, Dana Fidgen, Ryan Brown, Matthew D. Simpson, Alix Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Paramedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSepsisSeptic shockPsychological interventionEvidence-based practiceResuscitationEmergency medical servicesIntensive care medicineAdvanced life supportEmergency medicineEvidence-based medicineNursingInternal medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Prehospital Evidence-Based Practice (PEP) program is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated emergency medical services evidence repository. This PEP summary describes the research evidence for the identification and management of adult patients with sepsis or septic shock. Methods A systematic search of the literature on sepsis or septic shock was conducted. Studies were scored by trained appraisers on a three-point level of evidence scale (based on study design and quality) and a three-point direction of evidence scale (supportive, neutral or opposing findings based on the studies’ primary outcome for each intervention). Results One hundred forty-three studies (80 existing and 63 new) were included for 16 interventions listed in PEP for adult patients with sepsis. The evidence matrix rank for supported interventions (n=16) were supportive-high quality (n=2, 12.5%) for crystalloid infusion and vasopressors, supportive-moderate quality (n=8, 50%) for identification tools, pre-notification, point-of-care lactate, titrated oxygen, temperature monitoring and balanced crystalloids. The benefit of pre-hospital antibiotics, colloids, Trendelenburg position and early goal-directed therapy remain inconclusive with a neutral direction of evidence. There is moderate level evidence opposing the use of high flow oxygen. Conclusion Several standard treatments are well supported by the evidence including fluid resuscitation, using balanced crystalloids, vasopressors and titrating oxygen. Tools for identifying and guiding treatment are also supported (eg. pre-notification, temperature monitoring and lactate). The evidence for antibiotic use is inconclusive. This PEP state of the evidence analysis can be used to guide selection of appropriate pre-hospital therapies during the development of pre-hospital protocols or clinical practice guidelines.

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)0.133
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.421
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1330.421
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.012
Bibliometrics0.0400.034
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of ParamedicineSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207