Cargando…

Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and major contributor of public health and economic burden in the industrialised world. The heterogeneity, absence of more specific definition, and difficulties in accurate diagnosis lead to great variability in the estimates of sepsis incidence. Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsertsvadze, Alexander, Royle, Pam, McCarthy, Noel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4579606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26394931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0103-6
_version_ 1782391284889026560
author Tsertsvadze, Alexander
Royle, Pam
McCarthy, Noel
author_facet Tsertsvadze, Alexander
Royle, Pam
McCarthy, Noel
author_sort Tsertsvadze, Alexander
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and major contributor of public health and economic burden in the industrialised world. The heterogeneity, absence of more specific definition, and difficulties in accurate diagnosis lead to great variability in the estimates of sepsis incidence. There has been uncertainty regarding the incidence and risk factors attributable to community-onset as opposed to hospital-acquired sepsis. Community-onset sepsis has distinct host characteristics, risk factors, pathogens, and prognosis. A systematic assessment of recent evidence is warranted in light of secular changes in epidemiology, pathogens, and the uncertainties around the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to synthesise the recent empirical evidence on the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in high-income countries. METHODS/DESIGN: English-language publications of cohort and case-control studies reporting incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis will be eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE and Embase databases will be searched from 2002 and onwards. References of relevant publications will be hand-searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts as well as extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies. The data extractions and risk of bias assessments will be cross-checked. Any disagreements will be resolved via consensus. The data on incidence and risk factors of sepsis will be organised and synthesised in text, tables, and forest plots. The evidence will be pooled given sufficient data and degree of similarity across study populations, exposures, and outcomes. The heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots, Chi-square-based p value, and I(2) statistic. The sources of heterogeneity will be explored via subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: Timeliness and accuracy of diagnosis of sepsis are both crucial aspects for improving the patient’s outcome. The findings of this review will be discussed with a view to better inform future recommendations on improving public-facing campaigns, timely presentation, and diagnosis of sepsis in the community. The review will also discuss gaps in evidence and highlight future research and policy-making avenues for improving public health planning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023484
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4579606
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45796062015-09-24 Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review Tsertsvadze, Alexander Royle, Pam McCarthy, Noel Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and major contributor of public health and economic burden in the industrialised world. The heterogeneity, absence of more specific definition, and difficulties in accurate diagnosis lead to great variability in the estimates of sepsis incidence. There has been uncertainty regarding the incidence and risk factors attributable to community-onset as opposed to hospital-acquired sepsis. Community-onset sepsis has distinct host characteristics, risk factors, pathogens, and prognosis. A systematic assessment of recent evidence is warranted in light of secular changes in epidemiology, pathogens, and the uncertainties around the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to synthesise the recent empirical evidence on the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in high-income countries. METHODS/DESIGN: English-language publications of cohort and case-control studies reporting incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis will be eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE and Embase databases will be searched from 2002 and onwards. References of relevant publications will be hand-searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts as well as extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies. The data extractions and risk of bias assessments will be cross-checked. Any disagreements will be resolved via consensus. The data on incidence and risk factors of sepsis will be organised and synthesised in text, tables, and forest plots. The evidence will be pooled given sufficient data and degree of similarity across study populations, exposures, and outcomes. The heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots, Chi-square-based p value, and I(2) statistic. The sources of heterogeneity will be explored via subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: Timeliness and accuracy of diagnosis of sepsis are both crucial aspects for improving the patient’s outcome. The findings of this review will be discussed with a view to better inform future recommendations on improving public-facing campaigns, timely presentation, and diagnosis of sepsis in the community. The review will also discuss gaps in evidence and highlight future research and policy-making avenues for improving public health planning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023484 BioMed Central 2015-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4579606/ /pubmed/26394931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0103-6 Text en © Tsertsvadze et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Protocol
Tsertsvadze, Alexander
Royle, Pam
McCarthy, Noel
Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title_full Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title_fullStr Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title_short Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
title_sort community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4579606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26394931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0103-6
work_keys_str_mv AT tsertsvadzealexander communityonsetsepsisanditspublichealthburdenprotocolofasystematicreview
AT roylepam communityonsetsepsisanditspublichealthburdenprotocolofasystematicreview
AT mccarthynoel communityonsetsepsisanditspublichealthburdenprotocolofasystematicreview