Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40823290›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025

Diagnostic models for sepsis-associated encephalopathy: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tengfei Zhou, Xinming Tian, Wei Wang, Zhe Chu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tengfei ZhouDepartment of Emergency, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Xinming TianSchool of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Emergency, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.
Zhe ChuDepartment of Emergency, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the performance and methodological rigor of published prediction models for sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE), identify their limitations, and provide guidance for the future development of robust and clinically applicable models. Methods: We conducted a systematic search across nine English and Chinese databases (from inception to May 2025) for studies developing or validating SAE prediction models in adult sepsis patients. Two researchers independently gathered data, using PROBAST to assess methodological quality, and conducted a meta-analysis of the AUC of logistic regression models. Results: Ten studies were included, encompassing 55,244 patients with sepsis, revealing an incidence of SAE ranging from 15.0 to 62.4%. A total of 29 predictive models were developed, comprising 10 optimal models, primarily utilizing logistic regression or machine learning algorithms. The combined AUC of the five logistic regression models was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.93), exhibiting substantial heterogeneity (I Conclusion: Current SAE prediction models demonstrate moderate discriminatory ability, but their methodological quality remains poor, and they are not yet suitable for routine clinical application. In the future, standardized SAE definitions and prospective data collection should be strengthened, models should be developed and validated strictly following the TRIPOD guidelines, and model interpretability should be improved to promote clinical application. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251062747.

Indexed as

meta-analysismodelpredictionsepsis-associated encephalopathysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40823290
PMCPMC12350483

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.