脓毒症占全球可预防死亡的很大比例,早期治疗已被发现是降低死亡率的主要因素。在急救环境中早期识别败血症至关重要,因为这将缩短住院时间以及抗生素治疗和初始复苏的时间。我们的目的是探索与评估怀疑患有急性感染的成年人的急救提供者对败血症的认识或对败血症的认识有关的现有文献。我们的范围审查是作为国际复苏联络委员会(ILCOR)连续证据评估过程的一部分进行的,以更新2024ILCOR科学共识和治疗建议。我们搜查了Embase,Medline,和Cochrane数据库从成立到2023年1月17日,在2023年11月21日和2023年12月2日进行了更新搜索。灰色文献检索于2023年8月29日进行。人群包括患有急性疾病的成年人,表现出严重感染的体征和症状。结果包括败血症识别或外行急救提供者对败血症的认识。在审查了4380个潜在来源后,四项审查(三项系统审查和一项范围审查),11项观察性研究,27个网站符合纳入标准。没有研究直接针对我们的PICOST(人口,干预,比较器,结果,研究设计,和时间框架)问题,因为在急救设置中没有执行任何操作。3项系统评价和9项观察性研究评估早期预警评分检测脓毒症和预测脓毒症继发不良结局的能力,结果不一致。但许多人发现筛选工具是有用的。一项范围审查和一项观察性研究发现,公众对败血症的知识和认识是可变的,并且取决于医疗保健工作。location,教育水平,种族,性别,和年龄。灰色文献来源列出的与败血症相关的体征和症状主要属于九个一般类别,作为教育公众认识败血症的一种手段。尽管这次范围界定审查没有发现任何直接解决我们结果的研究,它强调了未来研究需要更好地了解急救环境中脓毒症的认识.
Sepsis accounts for a significant proportion of preventable deaths worldwide and early treatment has been found to be a mainstay of decreasing mortality. Early identification of sepsis in the first-aid setting is critical as this results in a shorter time to hospital presentation and management with antibiotics and initial resuscitation. Our aim was to explore the existing literature related to either sepsis
recognition or awareness of sepsis by first-aid providers who are evaluating an adult suspected of an acute infection. Our scoping review was performed as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation\'s (ILCOR) continuous evidence evaluation process to update the 2024 ILCOR Consensus on Science with Treatment Recommendations. We searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases from their inception to January 17, 2023, with updated searches performed on November 21, 2023, and December 2, 2023. The gray literature search was conducted on August 29, 2023. The population included adults presenting with an acute illness exhibiting signs and symptoms of a severe infection. Outcomes included sepsis
recognition or awareness of sepsis by a lay first-aid provider. After reviewing 4380 potential sources, four reviews (three systematic reviews and one scoping review), 11 observational studies, and 27 websites met the inclusion criteria. No study directly addressed our PICOST (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Study Design, and Timeframe) question as none were performed in the first-aid setting. Three systematic reviews and nine observational studies that assessed the ability of early warning scores to detect sepsis and predict adverse outcomes secondary to sepsis had inconsistent results, but many found the screening tools to be useful. One scoping review and one observational study found public knowledge and awareness of sepsis to be variable and dependent upon healthcare employment, location, education level, ethnicity, sex, and age. Signs and symptoms associated with sepsis as listed by gray literature sources fell primarily under nine general categories as a means of educating the public on sepsis
recognition. Although this scoping review did not identify any studies that directly addressed our outcomes, it highlights the need for future research to better understand the
recognition of sepsis in first-aid settings.