This is because the SIRS criteria are experienced by many hospitalized patients, many of whom do not experience the life-threatening response of septic shock. As such, it is poor at discriminating patients who are at the highest risk.[1]
This is a significant consideration because rapid diagnosis is associated with reduced mortality, morbidity, and hospital lengths of stay. However, the broad diagnostic criteria which favours rapid treatment may mean that patients who do not have sepsis are subjected to unnecessary therapeutic interventions and healthcare resources utilization.[2]
- ^ Gerlach, Herwig (2018-09-20). "Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)". F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature. Retrieved 2018-11-20.
- ^ Buehler, Stephanie S.; Madison, Bereneice; Snyder, Susan R.; Derzon, James H.; Cornish, Nancy E.; Saubolle, Michael A.; Weissfeld, Alice S.; Weinstein, Melvin P.; Liebow, Edward B. (2015-11-23). "Effectiveness of Practices To Increase Timeliness of Providing Targeted Therapy for Inpatients with Bloodstream Infections: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 29 (1): 59–103. doi:10.1128/cmr.00053-14. ISSN 0893-8512.
Comments
editThanks for sharing your proposed improvements. I have a few comments, but you have done a nice job so far.
-On Wikipedia we refer to "people" rather than "patients" as per WP:MEDMOS
-Can you try to write this using simpler terms? I think that your first two sentences could be shortened and simplified. e.g.: Many people in the hospital who are not experiencing life-threatening septic shock still show the symptoms that meet the SIRS critera.....SIRS criteria is not always accurate at determining which people have a high risk of... The SIRS criteria is poor at identifying people in the hospital who have a high risk of experiencing... These are just the start of ideas. If you want me to look at it again, I am happy to help.
- Note: I noticed that the article already has a similar explanation in the body: "Previously, SIRS criteria had been used to define sepsis. If the SIRS criteria are negative, it is very unlikely the person has sepsis; if it is positive, there is just a moderate probability that the person has sepsis." Are planning on changing this/removing this? Your references look great. Perhaps you can work with what is already there, tweak the text with a few improvements, and add in your new high quality citations.
-IMO this would not go into the article lead, rather under Sepsis#Definitions Is this what you are planning?
Thanks again for sharing this and for all your hard work.