Evidence Hub

Performance Evaluation of Prehospital Sepsis Prediction Models

I. Peltan, Kasra Rahmati, J. Bledsoe, Yukiko Yoneoka, Felicia Alvarez, Matthew Plendl, Peter P. Taillac, Scott T. Youngquist et al.

Critical Care Medicine, 2025

16,620 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate prediction models designed or used to identify patients with sepsis in the prehospital setting. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Four emergency departments (EDs) in Utah. PATIENTS: Adult nontrauma patient with available prehospital care records who received ED treatment during 2018 after arrival via ambulance. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 16,620 patients arriving to a study ED via ambulance, 1,037 (6.2%) met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED. Complete prehospital care data was available for 434 case patients with sepsis and 434 control patients without sepsis. Model discrimination for the outcome of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was quantified using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), which yields a value equal to outcome prevalence for a noninformative model. Of 21 evaluated prediction models, only the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) model (AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27–0.41) outperformed unaided infection assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel (AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13–0.23]) for prehospital prediction of patients who would meet Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED (p < 0.001). PRESEP also outperformed the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11–0.16]; p < 0.001). Among 28 evaluated dichotomous predictors of ED sepsis, sensitivity ranged from 6% to 91% and positive predictive value 8–100%. PRESEP exhibited modest sensitivity (60%) and positive…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 16,620 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free