Study | Purpose | Design | Study country | Number of centres | Sample size | Reported incidence | GRADE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies describing the identification of sepsis by EMS providers | |||||||
Asayama and Aikawa13 | To evaluate SIRS criteria as a predictor of mortality | Retrospective cohort | Japan | 1 Hospital | 59 Patients | 59/2180; 2.7% | Low |
Bayer et al18 | To develop and evaluate an early sepsis detection tool for EMS | Retrospective cohort | Germany | 1 Hospital | 375 Patients | 375/14 399; 2.6% | Moderate |
Groenewoudt et al19 | To describe patients transported by EMS and their management by EMS providers | Retrospective cohort | Netherlands | 1 Hospital | 287 Patients | Not available | Moderate |
Guerra et al14 | To evaluate EMS provider identification of severe sepsis using a screening tool | Prospective cohort | USA | 3 Hospitals | 112 Patients | 112/15 538; 0.7% | Low |
Polito et al17 | To develop an EMS screening tool for identifying severe sepsis | Retrospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 555 Patients | 75/555; 14%* | Low |
Seymour et al8 | To describe the incidence of severe sepsis seen in the prehospital setting | Retrospective cohort | USA | Not described | 13 249 Patients | 13 249/540 351; 2.5% | Moderate |
Studnek et al12 | To determine the effect of prehospital treatment on the time to definitive sepsis treatment | Prospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 311 Patients | Not available | Low |
Suffoletto et al15 | To evaluate EMS provider impression and physiological measures on the identification of patients with severe infection | Prospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 201 EMS providers | 16/199; 8% | Very low |
Wallgren et al16 | To validate prehospital screening tools for sepsis against provider impression | Retrospective cohort | Sweden | 1 Hospital | 353 Patients | Not available | Very low |
Studies describing EMS care delivery of patients with sepsis | |||||||
Baez et al23 | To assess the predictive effect of prehospital physiological measures on patient outcome | Retrospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 63 Patients | Not available | Very low |
Band et al24 | To assess time to treatment for patients arriving with EMS | Prospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 963 Patients | Not available | Moderate |
Femling et al25 | To describe patients transported by EMS and their subsequent ED management and outcomes | Retrospective cohort | USA | 6 Hospitals | 485 Patients | Not available | Low |
Seymour et al21 22 | To determine the impact of prehospital fluid resuscitation on time to achieve resuscitation goals | Retrospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 52 Patients | Not available | Low |
Seymour et al21 22 | To describe patient characteristics and EMS care of patients | Retrospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 216 Patients | Not available | Low |
Seymour et al20 | To describe the impact of EMS fluid resuscitation on patient mortality | Prospective cohort | USA | 15 Hospitals | 1350 Patients | 1450/45 394; 3.2% | Moderate |
Wang et al11 | To describe patient characteristics | Prospective cohort | USA | 1 Hospital | 1576 Patients | Not available | Low |
*Total patient population restricted to exclude patients unlikely to have sepsis during EMS care (ex. Trauma, Cardiac arrest).
ED, emergency department; EMS, emergency medical services; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Assessment; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome.