BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Definitions for pediatric sepsis were established in 2005 without data-driven criteria. It is unknown whether the more recent adult Sepsis-3 definitions meet the needs of providers caring for children. We aimed to explore the use and applicability of criteria to diagnose sepsis and septic shock in children across the world.

METHODS

This is an international electronic survey of clinicians distributed across international and national societies representing pediatric intensive care, emergency medicine, pediatrics, and pediatric infectious diseases. Respondents stated their preferences on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

There were 2835 survey responses analyzed, of which 48% originated from upper-middle income countries, followed by high income countries (38%) and low or lower-middle income countries (14%). Abnormal vital signs, laboratory evidence of inflammation, and microbiologic diagnoses were the criteria most used for the diagnosis of “sepsis.” The 2005 consensus definitions were perceived to be the most useful for sepsis recognition, while Sepsis-3 definitions were stated as more useful for benchmarking, disease classification, enrollment into trials, and prognostication. The World Health Organization definitions were perceived as least useful across all domains. Seventy one percent of respondents agreed that the term sepsis should be restricted to children with infection-associated organ dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians around the world apply a myriad of signs, symptoms, laboratory studies, and treatment factors when diagnosing sepsis. The concept of sepsis as infection with associated organ dysfunction is broadly supported. Currently available sepsis definitions fall short of the perceived needs. Future diagnostic algorithms should be pragmatic and sensitive to the clinical settings.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Sepsis is defined for adults as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Adult sepsis definitions have not been validated for use in children. The pediatric definition needs to be revised.

What This Study Adds:

Locally available resources to diagnose sepsis vary widely. The current definitions provide lower than expected utility. The surveyed community believe that the term “sepsis” should not be applied to children with infection without accompanying organ dysfunction.

Each year, an estimated 25 million neonates, children, and adolescents suffer from sepsis, leading to over 3 million deaths globally.1  Yet, controversy surrounds the attempts to operationalize the definition of sepsis in pediatric age groups and poses a major obstacle to implementation of the World Health Organization (WHO) resolution designating sepsis as a global health priority.2  Children with infection share many similarities in terms of pathophysiology and may benefit from standardized preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches.35  In 2005, the International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference (IPSCC) definitions were created to enable enrollment in a clinical trial; sepsis was conceptualized as systemic effects of inflammation caused by confirmed or suspected infection.68  These definitions have never been validated and may be problematic as they include parameters such as laboratory results and clinical interventions (eg, use of vasoactive medications), which are not available in all care settings.6  Further, the consensus definition of sepsis includes many patients with mild disease who clinicians would not intuitively consider to be “septic,” and who may not warrant aggressive treatment.9,10 

In 2016, the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis (Sepsis-3)11  were published, with sepsis defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, and clinically identified using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. It is not clear whether the Sepsis-3 approach will be useful in children due to the facts that: (1) the pathophysiology and epidemiology of overwhelming infection is often different in children,4,1214  (2) a pediatric version of the SOFA score has not yet been extensively validated,15,16  and (3) Sepsis-3 criteria may not be globally applicable to children with sepsis due to variable resource availability.2,17,18 

In 2018, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) launched the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce to derive and validate criteria for pediatric sepsis definitions using an inclusive, data-driven approach. This international taskforce recognizes the marked disparities in resources for children. It is also unclear what pediatric providers view as most useful in their daily practice when considering sepsis in a child.19,20 

Therefore, we conducted an international survey to identify how health care workers across the globe currently assess children for the presence of sepsis, how they use the current sepsis definitions in their daily practice, and to what group of patients the term sepsis should apply in the future.

The study was approved by the human research ethics committee, including implicit consent from participants filling out the survey (Children`s Health Queensland, Australia; LNR/19/QCHQ/559907).

A working group was formed with subject matter experts from the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce, which drafted, piloted, and revised the survey iteratively among its members (Supplemental Information).21  Once finalized, the 83-item survey was translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, and French. The survey data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture hosted at The University of Queensland. The World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies (WFPICCS) led the electronic dissemination of the survey to a total of 27 national or regional societies (Supplemental Information) with a focus on (pediatric) intensive care, pediatrics, emergency medicine, and infectious diseases. Most members have multiple memberships across national and regional societies and WFPICCS. We estimated the response rate for medical staff working in intensive care as 30.3% based on WFPICCS, and 13.9% based on non-WFPICCS societies. The survey instrument is available in the Supplemental Information.

Respondents were asked to provide information regarding their discipline, work environment, experience, and the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic tools. The second part of the survey assessed how clinicians approach a child being evaluated for sepsis and how they categorize the likelihood of sepsis or septic shock in relation to specific diagnostic or management criteria. Next, respondents were asked to state the perceived usefulness of current definitions of sepsis, including the IPSCC definition,8  the adult Sepsis-3 definitions,11  and the WHO definition,22  for the purposes of sepsis recognition, correct disease classification, prognostication, quality control and benchmarking, epidemiologic research, and for enrollment into clinical trials. Finally, respondents were asked to provide their opinion on how a future definition of the term sepsis should be used and to whom it should apply. Five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree” were used to assess respondents’ preferences. The survey was open from December 1, 2019 until March 15, 2020.

The reporting of this manuscript follows the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) guidelines.23  Data are presented as counts and percentages for categorical variables. We compared the partial and complete respondents’ characteristics using χ2 tests (Supplemental Table 3). We excluded surveys with 50% or fewer questions answered and surveys that did not contain key respondent characteristics. We categorized responses into 3 different income country subgroups: (1) low-income (LIC) combined with low-middle-income (LMIC), (2) upper-middle-income (UMIC), and (3) high-income (HIC) countries according to the World Bank classification of 2019 to 2020.24  The Likert scale responses were ranked according to the proportion of positive responses, where positive responses included both strongly agree and agree.

Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate if the responses differed between income country subgroups, the clinical expertise, and the clinical setting (Supplemental Information and Supplemental Figs 617 and Supplemental Tables 38). Analyses were performed with the R statistical package version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).25 

A total of 2891 responses were received. Surveys from 56 (1.9%) respondents who answered <50% of the questions or who did not complete the respondent characteristics section were excluded. A total of 2835 responses were analyzed (Table 1), including 1645 (56.9%) with complete surveys (Supplemental Table 3).

The most common region of origin was South America, followed by Asia (Fig 1). The respondents’ geo-economic classified group was LIC or LMIC in 14.1% (N = 399), UMIC in 48.0% (N = 1362), and HIC in 37.9% (N = 1074). The most common language used was English (1252, 44.2%), followed by Spanish (953, 33.6%), Mandarin (377, 13.3%), Portuguese (183, 6.5%), and French (70, 2.4%). The most common occupation among respondents was physician (2628, 92.7%), and 97% of all respondents served in clinical roles. Fifty-seven percent worked in a PICU (N = 1620), 15% in an emergency department (ED) (N = 424), 28% in ward settings (N = 791), and 6.9% (197) cared for adult patients too.

The most commonly available diagnostic modalities (>85% for LIC/LMIC, UMIC, and HIC) were simple radiologic imaging, complete blood count with differential, blood gas analysis, and noninvasive vital sign monitoring (Fig 2). The least available diagnostic modalities were rapid or polymerase chain reaction-based viral testing and echocardiography (<70% for LIC/LMIC and UMIC, <90% for HIC). The most commonly available management tools (>90% for LIC/LMIC, UMIC, and HIC) included fluid boluses, peripheral intravenous cannulation, and urinary catheterization. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and invasive hemodynamic monitoring were least commonly available (<25% for LIC/LMIC and UMIC, <65% for HIC). Availability of resources varied substantially based on income setting and clinical environment (Supplemental Table 4). For example, measurement of serum lactate levels was unavailable to 14% of respondents (25% in LIC/LMIC, 20% in UMIC, and 3% in HIC). The use of central venous access and the services of a pediatric intensivist were unavailable to 18% of respondents.

Consistent with the IPSCC definitions, abnormal vital signs, laboratory evidence of inflammation, and microbiological confirmation were the criteria most commonly used for the diagnosis of children with sepsis (Fig 3A, and Supplemental Table 9). Parental concern and clinicians “gut feel” emerged as least important variables. Evidence of (and treatments for) infection-induced organ dysfunction were most commonly used for the diagnosis of pediatric septic shock, particularly interventions intended to provide hemodynamic support such as fluids or inotropes (Fig 3B, and Supplemental Table 10).

We assessed respondents’ opinions about the perceived usefulness of the IPSCC, Sepsis-3, and WHO definitions in relation to clinical recognition, correct disease classification, outcome prognostication, quality control and benchmarking, understanding of sepsis epidemiology, and enrollment into clinical research (Fig 4). None of the available sepsis definitions was perceived as useful (agree or strongly agree) by more than 50% of the responders across all these domains. The IPSCC definition was perceived to be the most useful for sepsis recognition. The Sepsis-3 definition was classified as slightly more useful for benchmarking, disease classification, research, and prognostication. The WHO definition was perceived to be the least useful in most domains, except for recognition. Overall, respondents identified strong agreement that the next version of pediatric sepsis definitions should address all of these domains, with the recognition of sepsis receiving the greatest agreement (Fig 4).

A majority (71%) of respondents agreed that a future revision of the concept sepsis should not be applied to children without organ dysfunction in hospital settings, indicating support for the concept of sepsis as infection in the presence of organ dysfunction (Fig 5). The highest agreement (72%) was reached for sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction that is remote from the primary site of infection (eg, new renal or cardiovascular dysfunction in a child with pneumonia), followed by sepsis as life-threatening infection with fluid-refractory cardiovascular dysfunction (62%, eg, septic shock), and sepsis as life-threatening organ dysfunction that is limited to the primary site of infection (60%, eg, new respiratory failure in a child with pneumonia).

This global survey explored how health care workers involved in the care of children with sepsis view diagnostic concepts of sepsis. Previous studies revealed inconsistent application of criteria for sepsis,19  the lack of specificity of the criteria,16  and obstacles toward the global application of such criteria.6,17,18  This global survey articulates the challenges in applying sepsis definitions to children across diverse settings characterized by marked variations in resources. The notion of sepsis as infection with associated organ dysfunction15  was widely supported by respondents. The results indicate a strong preference of end-users to have access to criteria that enables improved recognition of sepsis, consistent with the needs of quality improvement initiatives. The findings will feed into the Delphi round of the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce and assist in shaping a data-driven approach to develop revised criteria for sepsis in children, which are adaptable to global settings.

The quest for sepsis criteria in the past has oscillated between the need to phenotypically characterize a nonspecific clinical syndrome and the requirement of clinicians, researchers, and health care organizations to operationalize a disease for the purposes of reproducibly classifying and measuring, or conducting clinical trials.26  At one end of the spectrum, sepsis was defined in 2001 as “documented or suspected [infection] and some of the following…” with 24 individual parameters listed.7  In 2005, IPSCC emphasized the importance of early, sensitive recognition.2729  Given that most febrile children manifest signs of SIRS even in the absence of organ dysfunction, by necessity the IPSCC definition is sensitive at the expense of specificity. In contrast, the adult Sepsis-3 criteria meet expectations for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely concepts, and were designed to facilitate specific identification of patients with substantially increased mortality. Yet, these criteria omitted pediatric age groups and have proven to be only partially applicable to LIC and MIC settings. In addition, fundamental controversy surrounds their value in relation to initiatives such as the Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes collaborative, which fosters systematic quality improvement in sepsis recognition and treatment across over 57 US hospitals.17,30,31 

In the present survey, the differences in the level of agreement across individual criteria were relatively minor. For example, over 80% of all respondents stated that hemodynamic support (through fluid bolus or vasoactive-inotropic therapy), laboratory or therapeutic variables indicating organ dysfunction, signs of poor perfusion (such as poor skin perfusion, altered neurologic function, low urinary output, or increased lactate), and sepsis scores identified children with septic shock. These findings likely reflect the daily situation when clinicians are confronted with a child who “looks septic.” Rather than applying specific criteria, respondents seem to base such a diagnosis on a wealth of variables associated with the use of clinical reasoning skills, even if the importance of “gut feeling” was ranked low in our survey. Angus referred to this phenomenon in relation to sepsis as an inherently “fuzzy” syndrome.32  As objective diagnostic criteria are needed for operational, quality, and research purposes, a data-driven approach may yield more relevant diagnostic criteria than an a priori opinion-based approach.33,34 

As per the respondents of this survey, current approaches to define sepsis in children fall short of the need to provide both improved recognition for the purpose of allowing earlier treatment, as well as accurate case classification for the purpose of benchmarking, research, prognostication, and epidemiologic assessment. Accordingly, the development of new pediatric sepsis criteria may necessitate a tiered approach, starting with the derivation and validation of criteria characterizing groups of infected patients at substantially increased risk of mortality, eg, children with established (multi-) organ dysfunction, followed by the development of tools facilitating early recognition of such phenotypes. There was wide agreement among respondents that organ dysfunction is required to distinguish sepsis from infection. While sepsis-related organ dysfunction may be confined to the site of primary infection only, the concept of systemic processes (such as dysregulated host response to infection) leading to organ dysfunction remote from the site of primary infection was considered a slightly stronger indication of the presence of sepsis.

Most children and neonates developing and succumbing from sepsis globally live in less resourced areas in South America, Asia, or Africa.1,35,36  Yet, only a minor proportion of pediatric sepsis trials are conducted in these settings13,14,37  and neither the expert panel for the IPSCC nor the Sepsis-3 Taskforce included experts from LIC, LMIC, or UMIC settings. Furthermore, as indicated by our survey, the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities varies not only by country income level, but by discipline and clinical environment as well. Any initiative to revise pediatric sepsis definitions should aim to explore criteria that can be applied in or adapted toward differently resourced health care settings. The bedrock of such an undertaking is a firm understanding on how sepsis in children is diagnosed based on resource availability. For example, evidence supports the value of serum lactate concentration in identifying children with sepsis at higher risk of mortality.3841  However, the restricted availability of lactate measures outside HIC identified in our survey contrasts with IPSCC (and Sepsis-3) criteria for septic shock that incorporate lactataemia.8,11  We posit that the lack of available tools, such as lactate, is likely underestimated in our survey given that the predominate responses were from UMIC and HIC settings, supporting the need to improve diagnostic resources.42 

The response pattern of this survey with a predominance of UMIC and HIC, compared with 14.1% of responses originating in LIC/LMIC mirrors the current inequities in global access to intensive care resources.4345  Our findings are supported by a number of recent studies: an international survey across 350 facilities in 4 LIC/LMIC countries identified that only 13% had sufficient resources to manage childhood pneumonia with basic measures, such as antibiotics, saturation monitoring, and oxygen,46  confirming that organ support in LICs remains largely unavailable. In a recent Brazilian study, the PICU bed-to-population ratio varied from 1 per 604 to 1 per 6812, and 41% of national PICUs were classified as well resourced, in contrast to 27% with intermediate, and 32% with low resourcing,47  demonstrating major inequities even within the same country.47  A global survey on adult and pediatric critical care delivery including 328 respondents (11.7% from LICs) observed significantly lower availability of laboratory and imaging diagnostics, invasive monitoring, blood products, and advanced ventilatory support in LMIC settings, affecting the capability to deliver a basic sepsis bundle.48  Failure to meet WHO standards of hospital care resources has prompted a recent White Paper on Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.42  Thus, the present survey likely reflects the reality of current provision of critical care support for children in LIC and LMICs where resources are poor and our clinical colleagues are overburdened.49 

This study has several limitations. First, due to the dissemination through several societies and the lack of data on multiple memberships, the response rate needs to be considered approximate. We acknowledge that this represents a major limitation to external validation as the survey was biased toward respondents working in critical care. Other disciplines, such as emergency medicine, and professions, such as nurses, which play an important role in the early diagnosis of children with sepsis, were underrepresented in this survey. Overall, responses were skewed with underrepresentation of community-based settings in LIC and LMIC, especially from African countries, where large numbers of sick children present in the absence of intensive care resources.50  The survey was translated into 5 of the most commonly used languages, which represent about half of the world’s population, but we acknowledge that the lack of translations into additional languages such as Arabic may have contributed to selection bias. Second, inherent to any survey on self-reported practice, we are unable to comment on discrepancies between stated versus observed practice. Third, we consciously refrained from testing knowledge or familiarity with the 3 sepsis definitions, which were provided explicitly on the survey portal, and hence the survey does not allow us to interpret the degree of uptake of the definitions in daily practice. Fourth, the survey explicitly referred to “pediatric” sepsis, and to “children,” and did not assess respondents’ perception on the applicability of these criteria for neonatal age groups.51,52  Finally, although the survey dissemination overlapped with the latest pediatric Surviving Sepsis Campaign release, it seems unlikely that this affected results relevantly, given that the SSC stated that IPSCC remain the only available pediatric sepsis criteria.

In conclusion, this international survey highlights the challenges in applying sepsis criteria to children depending on the available resources of health care settings, clinical environment, and disciplines. This indicates a need for organ dysfunction criteria which can be pragmatically implemented in emergency, ward, or other general pediatric settings around the world. Future diagnostic algorithms should carefully balance pragmatism versus simplification. The survey identified a need for end-users to have access to sepsis tools which are sensitive as well as titratable to the locally available resources.

We thank the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) for their support in facilitating this project, Lori Harmon from the SCCM for her help with the Pediatric Sepsis Definitions Task Force, and Trang Pham, data scientist at the Children’s Health Research Centre at the University of Queensland, for her valuable help in creating the RedCap form for this survey.

On behalf of the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce: Samuel Akech, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Program (Nairobi, Kenya); Elizabeth R. Alpern, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (Chicago, IL); Fran Balamuth, Chil’ren's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Tellen D. Bennett, University of Colorado (Denver, CO); Paolo Biban, Verona University Hospital (Verona, Italy); Joseph A Carcillo, MD Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Pediatrics, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA); Enitan Carrol, University of Liverpool (Liverpool, UK); Kathleen Chiotos, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Mohammod Jobayer Chisti, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (ICDDRB) (Dhaka, Bangladesh); Idris Evans, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA); David Inwald, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Trust (Cambridge, UK); Paul Ishimine, University of California San Diego (San Diego, CA); Michael Levin, Imperial College London (London, UK); Rakesh Lodha, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (New Delhi, India); Kathryn Maitland, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (Kilifi, Kenya); Kusum Menon, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada); Simon Nadel, St. Mary’s Hospital (London, UK); Claudio Flauzino Oliveira, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (São Paulo, Brazil); Mark J Peters, Great Ormond Street Hospital and UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (London, UK); Adrienne G. Randolph, Boston Children's Hospital (Boston, MA); L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago (Chicago, IL); Halden F. Scott, Children's Hospital Colorado (Aurora, CO); Juliane Bubeck Wardenburg, Department of Pediatrics Washington School of Medicine St. Louis (St. Louis, MN); Scott L. Weiss, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Wilson Milton Were, Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization (Geneva, Switzerland); Matthew O. Wiens, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, Canada), Mbarara University of Science and Technology (Mbarara Uganda); James L. Wynn, University of Florida (Gainesville, FL).

Drs Schlapbach, Hall, Morin, and Watson conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated data collection, supervised data analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Drs de Souza, Guoping, Jabornisky, Shime, Ranjit, and Nakagawa designed and piloted the data collection instruments, designed the final data collection survey, collected data, contributed to reviewing analyses, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Gilholm contributed to study design, performed data collection reports, performed all analyses, and contributed to the manuscript writing; Drs Zimmerman, Kissoon, Argent, and Sorce, contributed to study design, survey dissemination, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content; all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. A complete list of the study group members appears in the acknowledgements.

FUNDING: This project was supported by the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies (WFPICCS), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). No specific funding was required to perform this substudy. LJS was supported by a Practitioner Fellowship of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and New Zealand, and by the Children`s Hospital Foundation, Brisbane, Australia.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES The authors work together on the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce, which has been commissioned by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). Pierre Tissières received a consulting fee for Baxter Inc, Inotrem Inc, Sedana Inc, bioMerieux Inc and is President of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care and a member of the Steering Committee of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2022-056410.

AAPOR

American Association for Public Opinion Research

ECMO

extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

ED

emergency department

ESICM

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

ESPNIC

European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care

HIC

high income country

IPSCC

International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference

IQR

interquartile range

LIC

low-income country

LMIC

lower-middle income country

SCCM

Society of Critical Care Medicine

SMART

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely

SOFA

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

UMIC

upper-middle income country

WFPICCS

World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies

WHO

World Health Organization

1
Rudd
KE
,
Johnson
SC
,
Agesa
KM
, et al
.
Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
.
Lancet
.
2020
;
395
(
10219
):
200
211
2
Reinhart
K
,
Daniels
R
,
Kissoon
N
,
Machado
FR
,
Schachter
RD
,
Finfer
S
.
Recognizing sepsis as a global health prior–ty - a WHO resolution
.
N Engl J Med
.
2017
;
377
(
5
):
414
417
3
Cohen
J
.
Sepsis in children: some good news, some confusing news
.
Lancet Infect Dis
.
2015
;
15
(
1
):
5
6
4
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Straney
L
,
Alexander
J
, et al;
ANZICS Paediatric Study Group
.
Mortality related to invasive infections, sepsis, and septic shock in critically ill children in Australia and New Zealand, 2002-13: a multicentre retrospective cohort study
.
Lancet Infect Dis
.
2015
;
15
(
1
):
46
54
5
Watson
RS
,
Carcillo
JA
,
Linde-Zwirble
WT
,
Clermont
G
,
Lidicker
J
,
Angus
DC
.
The epidemiology of severe sepsis in children in the United States
.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
.
2003
;
167
(
5
):
695
701
6
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Kissoon
N
.
Defining pediatric sepsis
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2018
;
172
(
4
):
312
314
7
Levy
MM
,
Fink
MP
,
Marshall
JC
, et al;
SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS
.
2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS international sepsis definitions conference
.
Crit Care Med
.
2003
;
31
(
4
):
1250
1256
8
Goldstein
B
,
Giroir
B
,
Randolph
A
;
International Consensus Conference on Pediatric Sepsis
.
International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics
.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2005
;
6
(
1
):
2
8
9
Force
IST
;
IDSA Sepsis Task Force
.
Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) position statement: why IDSA dannot endorse the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines
.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2018
;
66
(
10
):
1631
1635
10
Weiss
SL
,
Peters
MJ
,
Alhazzani
W
, et al
.
Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children
.
Intensive Care Med
.
2020
;
46
(
Suppl 1
):
10
67
11
Singer
M
,
Deutschman
CS
,
Seymour
CW
, et al
.
The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3)
.
JAMA
.
2016
;
315
(
8
):
801
810
12
Weiss
SL
,
Fitzgerald
JC
,
Pappachan
J
, et al;
Sepsis Prevalence, Outcomes, and Therapies (SPROUT) Study Investigators and Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network
.
Global epidemiology of pediatric severe sepsis: the sepsis prevalence, outcomes, and therapies study
.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
.
2015
;
191
(
10
):
1147
1157
13
Menon
K
,
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Akech
S
, et al
.
Criteria for pediatric sepsis-a systematic review and meta-analysis by the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce
.
Crit Care Med
.
2022
;
50
(
1
):
21
36
14
Menon
K
,
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Akech
S
, et al
.
Pediatric sepsis definition-a systematic review protocol by the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce
.
Crit Care Explor
.
2020
;
2
(
6
):
e0123
15
Matics
TJ
,
Sanchez-Pinto
LN
.
Adaptation and validation of a pediatric sequential organ failure assessment score and evaluation of the Sepsis-3 definitions in critically ill children
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2017
;
171
(
10
):
e172352
16
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Straney
L
,
Bellomo
R
,
MacLaren
G
,
Pilcher
D
.
Prognostic accuracy of age-adapted SOFA, SIRS, PELOD-2, and qSOFA for in-hospital mortality among children with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit
.
Intensive Care Med
.
2018
;
44
(
2
):
179
188
17
Machado
FR
,
Nsutebu
E
,
AbDulaziz
S
, et al
.
Sepsis 3 from the perspective of clinicians and quality improvement initiatives
.
J Crit Care
.
2017
;
40
:
315
317
18
Kissoon
N
,
Reinhart
K
,
Daniels
R
,
Machado
MFR
,
Schachter
RD
,
Finfer
S
.
Sepsis in children: global implications of the World Health assembly resolution on sepsis
.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2017
;
18
(
12
):
e625
e627
19
Weiss
SL
,
Fitzgerald
JC
,
Maffei
FA
, et al;
SPROUT Study Investigators and Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators Network
.
Discordant identification of pediatric severe sepsis by research and clinical definitions in the SPROUT international point prevalence study
.
Crit Care
.
2015
;
19
(
1
):
325
20
Scott
HF
,
Deakyne
SJ
,
Woods
JM
,
Bajaj
L
.
The prevalence and diagnostic utility of systemic inflammatory response syndrome vital signs in a pediatric emergency department
.
Acad Emerg Med
.
2015
;
22
(
4
):
381
389
21
Burns
KE
,
Duffett
M
,
Kho
ME
,
Meade
MO
,
Adhikari
NK
,
Sinuff
T
, et al
.
A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians
.
CMAJ’anadienne
.
2008
;
179
(
3
):
245
252
22
Guidelines WHO Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee
.
Pocket Book of Hospital Care for Children: Guidelines for the Management of Common Childhood Illnesses
.
Geneva
:
World Health Organization
;
2013
;
2013
23
AAPOR TAAfPOR
.
Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys
, 9th ed.
AAPOR
;
2016
24
World Bank Data Team
.
New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2019-2020
.
25
Team R Core Team
.
A language and environment for statistical computing
.
Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. 2019. Accessed April 1, 2020
26
Graciano
AL
,
Balko
JA
,
Rahn
DS
,
Ahmad
N
,
Giroir
BP
.
The Pediatric Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (P-MODS): development and validation of an objective scale to measure the severity of multiple organ dysfunction in critically ill children
.
Crit Care Med
.
2005
;
33
(
7
):
1484
1491
27
Brierley
J
,
Carcillo
JA
,
Choong
K
, et al
.
Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock: 2007 update from the American College of Critical Care Medicine
.
Crit Care Med
.
2009
;
37
(
2
):
666
688
28
Carcillo
JA
,
Fields
AI
;
American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force Committee Members
.
Clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal patients in septic shock
.
Crit Care Med
.
2002
;
30
(
6
):
1365
1378
29
Davis
AL
,
Carcillo
JA
,
Aneja
RK
, et al
.
American College of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice parameters for hemodynamic support of pediatric and neonatal septic shock
.
Crit Care Med
.
2017
;
45
(
6
):
1061
1093
30
Larsen
GY
,
Brilli
R
,
Macias
CG
, et al;
Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes Collaborative Investigators
.
Development of a quality improvement learning collaborative to improve pediatric sepsis outcomes
.
Pediatrics
.
2021
;
147
(
1
):
e20201434
31
Paul
R
,
Niedner
M
,
Brilli
R
, et al;
IPSO Collaborative Investiagors
.
Metric development for the multicenter Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes (IPSO) collaborative
.
Pediatrics
.
2021
;
147
(
5
):
e2020017889
32
Angus
DC
.
Opening the debate on the new sepsis definition defining sepsis: a case of bounded rationality and fuzzy thinking?
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
.
2016
;
194
(
1
):
14
15
33
Sanchez-Pinto
LN
,
Stroup
EK
,
Pendergrast
T
,
Pinto
N
,
Luo
Y
.
Derivation and validation of novel phenotypes of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critically ill children
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2020
;
3
(
8
):
e209271
34
Seymour
CW
,
Kennedy
JN
,
Wang
S
, et al
.
Derivation, validation, and potential treatment implications of novel clinical phenotypes for sepsis
.
JAMA
.
2019
;
321
(
20
):
2003
2017
35
Fleischmann-Struzek
C
,
Goldfarb
DM
,
Schlattmann
P
,
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Reinhart
K
,
Kissoon
N
.
The global burden of paediatric and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review
.
Lancet Respir Med
.
2018
;
6
(
3
):
223
230
36
Tan
B
,
Wong
JJ
,
Sultana
R
, et al
.
Global case-fatality rates in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2019
;
173
(
4
):
352
362
37
Kanthimathinathan
HK
,
Peters
MJ
.
Focus on paediatrics 2018
.
Intensive Care Med
.
2018
;
44
(
12
):
2267
2270
38
Scott
HF
,
Brou
L
,
Deakyne
SJ
,
Kempe
A
,
Fairclough
DL
,
Bajaj
L
.
Association between early lactate levels and 30-day mortality in clinically suspected sepsis in children
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2017
;
171
(
3
):
249
255
39
Schlapbach
LJ
,
MacLaren
G
,
Straney
L
.
Venous vs arterial lactate and 30-Day mortality in pediatric sepsis
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2017
;
171
(
8
):
813
40
Schlapbach
LJ
,
MacLaren
G
,
Festa
M
, et al;
Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Centre for Outcomes & Resource Evaluation (CORE) and Australian & New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Paediatric Study Group
.
Prediction of pediatric sepsis mortality within 1 h of intensive care admission
.
Intensive Care Med
.
2017
;
43
(
8
):
1085
1096
41
Scott
HF
,
Brou
L
,
Deakyne
SJ
,
Fairclough
DL
,
Kempe
A
,
Bajaj
L
.
Lactate clearance and normalization and prolonged organ dysfunction in pediatric sepsis
.
J Pediatr
.
2016
;
170
:
149
155
e141
-
144
42
Losonczy
LI
,
Papali
A
,
Kivlehan
S
, et al
.
White paper on early critical care services in low resource settings
.
Ann Glob Health
.
2021
;
87
(
1
):
105
43
Organization WH
.
Medical doctors (per 10 000 population)
.
44
Frankel
LR
,
Hsu
BS
,
Yeh
TS
, et al;
Voting Panel
.
Criteria for critical care infants and children: PICU admission, discharge, and triage practice statement and levels of care guidance
.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2019
;
20
(
9
):
847
887
45
Hsu
BS
,
Hill
V
,
Frankel
LR
, et al
.
Executive summary: criteria for critical care of infants and children: PICU admission, discharge, and triage practice statement and levels of care guidance
.
Pediatrics
.
2019
;
144
(
4
):
e20192433
46
Simkovich
SM
,
Underhill
LJ
,
Kirby
MA
, et al
.
Resources and geographical access to care for severe pediatric pneumonia in four resource-limited settings
.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
.
2022
;
205
(
2
):
183
197
47
de Souza
DC
,
Gonçalves Martin
J
,
Soares Lanziotti
V
, et al;
SPREAD PED Investigators and the Instituto Latino Americano de Sepsis Network
.
The epidemiology of sepsis in paediatric intensive care units in Brazil (the Sepsis PREvalence Assessment Database in Pediatric population, SPREAD PED): an observational study
.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health
.
2021
;
5
(
12
):
873
881
48
Muttalib
F
,
González-Dambrauskas
S
,
Lee
JH
, et al;
PALISI Global Health Subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI)
.
Pediatric emergency and critical care resources and infrastructure in resource-limited settings: a multicountry survey
.
Crit Care Med
.
2021
;
49
(
4
):
671
681
49
Schlapbach
LJ
,
Reinhart
K
,
Kissoon
N
;
Pediatric Sepsis Data CoLaboratory (Sepsis CoLab) and the Global Sepsis Alliance (GSA)
.
A pediatric perspective on World Sepsis Day in 2021: leveraging lessons from the pandemic to reduce the global pediatric sepsis burden?
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol
.
2021
;
321
(
3
):
L608
L613
50
Ravikumar
N
,
Baranwal
AK
.
Fluid bolus in hypotensive septic shock: need to encourage critical care interventions outside the formal PICU
.
Pediatr Crit Care Med
.
2020
;
21
(
9
):
856
857
51
Molloy
EJ
,
Wynn
JL
,
Bliss
J
, et al;
on behalf of the Infection, Inflammation, Immunology and Immunisation (I4) section of the ESPR
.
Neonatal sepsis: need for consensus definition, collaboration and core outcomes
.
Pediatr Res
.
2020
;
88
(
1
):
2
4
52
Wynn
JL
.
Defining neonatal sepsis
.
Curr Opin Pediatr
.
2016
;
28
(
2
):
135
140

Supplementary data