Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 13.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-025-09569-5. Online ahead of print.

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

Affiliations

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

Samer Ein Alshaeba et al. J Gen Intern Med. .

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.

Keywords: machine learning; mortality; sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Human Ethics and Consent to Participate Declarations: Not applicable. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(11):e1063-e1143. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(23):2235-2244. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Hooper MH, Weavind L, Wheeler AP, et al. Randomized trial of automated, electronic monitoring to facilitate early detection of sepsis in the intensive care unit*. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(7):2096-2101. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Downey C, Randell R, Brown J, Jayne DG. Continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring using a wearable, wireless patch in patients admitted to surgical wards: pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e10802. - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Shimabukuro DW, Barton CW, Feldman MD, Mataraso SJ, Das R. Effect of a machine learning-based severe sepsis prediction algorithm on patient survival and hospital length of stay: a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017;4(1):e000234. - DOI - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources